This is the real reason to move away from fossil fuels

[SublimeKnight]

If humans are the cause of climate change, I fear there maybe a terrible consequence to fixing it.
Moving to electric cars isn't bad. No one should really be bothered by this, they're faster, more responsive, they're just better in general.
Moving to solar isn't bad either. As equipment improves, power will be cheaper and more reliable. Outages will be mostly a thing of the past.
None of those concern me... it's steak. Cattle is a huge contributor to the effect of greenhouse gases. Methane per kg is like 20-30x more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Maybe they can figure out how to capture it, but no matter what, the price of steaks will increase.

 

[NinjaKnight]

If humans are the cause of climate change, I fear there maybe a terrible consequence to fixing it.
Moving to electric cars isn't bad. No one should really be bothered by this, they're faster, more responsive, they're just better in general.
Moving to solar isn't bad either. As equipment improves, power will be cheaper and more reliable. Outages will be mostly a thing of the past.
None of those concern me... it's steak. Cattle is a huge contributor to the effect of greenhouse gases. Methane per kg is like 20-30x more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Maybe they can figure out how to capture it, but no matter what, the price of steaks will increase.

This is true, however scientists are making great strides towards lab grown meat, so you should be able to have an even more perfectly marbled ribeye than is possible now, for cheaper, without damning your grandchildren to living as Kevin Costner's pirate slaves in Waterworld.

 

[UCFKnight85]

If humans are the cause of climate change, I fear there maybe a terrible consequence to fixing it.
Moving to electric cars isn't bad. No one should really be bothered by this, they're faster, more responsive, they're just better in general.
Moving to solar isn't bad either. As equipment improves, power will be cheaper and more reliable. Outages will be mostly a thing of the past.
None of those concern me... it's steak. Cattle is a huge contributor to the effect of greenhouse gases. Methane per kg is like 20-30x more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Maybe they can figure out how to capture it, but no matter what, the price of steaks will increase.

Switching to electric cars still doesn't really matter if everyone is plugging in to charge with energy derived from a power company that leveraged that energy from fossil fuels.

Nuclear power expansion would be the quickest way to reliability increased CO2 free energy. But the eco-warriors are fully against nuclear energy, despite the fact that France is almost entirely powered by nuclear and does it safely.

The needle movers for CO2 is quite simple- main drivers of energy (i.e. power companies) and transport vehicles. You buying an electric car likely won't matter. Having UPS convert their entire truck fleet to electric would matter.

 

[UCFKnight85]

This is true, however scientists are making great strides towards lab grown meat, so you should be able to have an even more perfectly marbled ribeye than is possible now, for cheaper, without damning your grandchildren to living as Kevin Costner's pirate slaves in Waterworld.

NO GMOS. GMOS BAD. DIE GMO SUPPORTER!!!

 

[SublimeKnight]

This is true, however scientists are making great strides towards lab grown meat, so you should be able to have an even more perfectly marbled ribeye than is possible now, for cheaper, without damning your grandchildren to living as Kevin Costner's pirate slaves in Waterworld.

I've read about this. It would be great to be able to type in my order for a wagyu bison filet into my jetson food machine in the morning. And come home to a perfect medium-rare steak waiting for me after work.

 

[SublimeKnight]

Switching to electric cars still doesn't really matter if everyone is plugging in to charge with energy derived from a power company that leveraged that energy from fossil fuels.

Nuclear power expansion would be the quickest way to reliability increased CO2 free energy. But the eco-warriors are fully against nuclear energy, despite the fact that France is almost entirely powered by nuclear and does it safely.

The needle movers for CO2 is quite simple- main drivers of energy (i.e. power companies) and transport vehicles. You buying an electric car likely won't matter. Having UPS convert their entire truck fleet to electric would matter.

The highlighted is a myth.

Nuclear was a great solution 30 years ago, but solar/wind/batteries are simpler, safer, and gets rid of a fragile and expensive to maintain national power grid.

 

[UCFKnight85]

The highlighted is a myth.

Nuclear was a great solution 30 years ago, but solar/wind/batteries are simpler, safer, and gets rid of a fragile and expensive to maintain national power grid.

What are you talking about?? We have tons of wind energy in this country; we still need an electric grid to move the energy created.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Switching to electric cars still doesn't really matter if everyone is plugging in to charge with energy derived from a power company that leveraged that energy from fossil fuels.

Nuclear power expansion would be the quickest way to reliability increased CO2 free energy. But the eco-warriors are fully against nuclear energy, despite the fact that France is almost entirely powered by nuclear and does it safely.

The needle movers for CO2 is quite simple- main drivers of energy (i.e. power companies) and transport vehicles. You buying an electric car likely won't matter. Having UPS convert their entire truck fleet to electric would matter.

I actually agree with this, I am extremely pro nuclear and think it would be the fastest way to get rid of fossil fuel plants. Solar/wind is catching up, and can/should be used to supplement nuclear until they take completely over or we develop better technologies.

NO GMOS. GMOS BAD. DIE GMO SUPPORTER!!!

I'm assuming you are being sarcastic here, in which case I agree with you again. We have been genetically modifying organisms for tens of thousands of years, there is not a single plant or animal that we eat today that is identical to it's wild ancestor.

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

The highlighted is a myth.

Nuclear was a great solution 30 years ago, but solar/wind/batteries are simpler, safer, and gets rid of a fragile and expensive to maintain national power grid.

I think the renewables is definitely the way to go long term and from a strategic perspective should be decentralized as much as possible. Today's grid would be down for months if it all went down at once. There's only so many "self starting" power plants.

 

[SublimeKnight]

What are you talking about?? We have tons of wind energy in this country; we still need an electric grid to move the energy created.

The idea is locally generated power. If you cover your roof in solar panels, you become a small energy company. With a cheap local grid connecting you to your neighbors you can buy, sell, store the electricity you produce. There is no reason to connect rural montana to south dakota. Or Tampa and Orlando. With batteries, electricity doesn't need to be consumed or dumped within seconds of production... with solar and wind, you don't need huge centralized power stations.

The power companies know this. They are fighting against solar everywhere they can.

 

[UCFKnight85]

The idea is locally generated power. If you cover your roof in solar panels, you become a small energy company. With a cheap local grid connecting you to your neighbors you can buy, sell, store the electricity you produce. There is no reason to connect rural montana to south dakota. Or Tampa and Orlando. With batteries, electricity doesn't need to be consumed or dumped within seconds of production... with solar and wind, you don't need huge centralized power stations.

The power companies know this. They are fighting against solar everywhere they can.

Ok well right now outfitting solar on my roof costs a huge sum of money and sticking a standalone windmill in my St Pete lot is not realistic. So I guess let me know when micro power output is feasible.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I actually agree with this, I am extremely pro nuclear and think it would be the fastest way to get rid of fossil fuel plants. Solar/wind is catching up, and can/should be used to supplement nuclear until they take completely over or we develop better technologies.



I'm assuming you are being sarcastic here, in which case I agree with you again. We have been genetically modifying organisms for tens of thousands of years, there is not a single plant or animal that we eat today that is identical to it's wild ancestor.

We have billions more people on the earth than we should. The hippies will just have to deal with food derived from GMOs. I wonder if they know the growing weed industry relies on GMO?

 

[CommuterBob]

At this point, it doesn't really matter about climate change (and it really never did anyway). Strategies should be developed as to how to adapt and mitigate, rather than how to stop or reverse. The latter just isn't going to happen.

 

[EweSeaEff]

Ok well right now outfitting solar on my roof costs a huge sum of money and sticking a standalone windmill in my St Pete lot is not realistic. So I guess let me know when micro power output is feasible.

For most the answer is community/shared solar. It can be constructed within a microgrid or as a remote production plant. Of course, here in Florida it's still illegal for anyone other than a utility to generate/sell power. Yay, government-sponsored monopolies!

 

[UCFKnight85]

For most the answer is community/shared solar. It can be constructed within a microgrid or as a remote production plant. Of course, here in Florida it's still illegal for anyone other than a utility to generate/sell power. Yay, government-sponsored monopolies!

My community can barely agree on expenses for the children's playground. I would hate to see the clusterf*ck that would arise from being responsible for upkeep and maintenance of a solar farm that is responsible for everyone's power.

 

[EweSeaEff]

My community can barely agree on expenses for the children's playground. I would hate to see the clusterf*ck that would arise from being responsible for upkeep and maintenance of a solar farm that is responsible for everyone's power.

Note that the term "community" solar isn't necessarily referring to one's micro-level community, subdivision, etc. Shared solar is a better title, imo, but "community solar" is the title/name that's taken off and is used more in marketing, etc. It's effectively a form of net energy metering.

Essentially, a developer builds a solar power facility somewhere (could be near your house or not). That same developer then goes out and gets residential users, commercial users, munis, schools, etc. to "subscribe" to a certain percentage of that facility's output (100% of the output is taken by the utility through a contractual arrangement with the developer/project owner). The local electric service company for the zone in which the solar facility and its subscribers are located then credits each subscriber's energy bill for the respective subscribed portion of each subscriber. The developer gets paid through a subscription agreement with each subscriber and the amount paid by each subscriber is typically a discount to their retail electrical rate - meaning that the subscribers are, in effect, arbitraging their electricity rates (i.e., getting a credit worth more than that which they're paying the developer for the respective credit). It may sound confusing, but it's actually a very simple tri-party arrangement.

The largest benefit to this, given favorable policy (meaning that the government no longer sponsors and rewards the utility monopolies), is that 100% of the population could theoretically participate. Contrast that to the residential solar space where it's estimated that only 22%-27% of residential rooftops are capable of hosting a solar system (NREL).

 

[UCFBS]

For most the answer is community/shared solar. It can be constructed within a microgrid or as a remote production plant. Of course, here in Florida it's still illegal for anyone other than a utility to generate/sell power. Yay, government-sponsored monopolies!

+1

The engineer-libertarian in me burns up when people don't understand where the real problem is when it comes to this, among other things.

Solar, as efficiency went up and costs went down (especially 'environmental cost' of the materials -- far, far more 'environmentally friendly' now than just a decade ago), was always going to be that 'thorn in the side' of the utilities that rely on the power grid control.

I.e., unlike a turbine-generator and other things ... even the 'noise' of wind ... solar is one of those 'endpoint generation' or 'community generation' solutions that has virtually no impact. You can drop it in anywhere there is surface area.

 

[UCFBS]

My community can barely agree on expenses for the children's playground. I would hate to see the clusterf*ck that would arise from being responsible for upkeep and maintenance of a solar farm that is responsible for everyone's power.

The classic argument of how American consumers suck at socialism and communism. They always want other people to pay for their own usage, and cannot stand to see the actual costs themselves -- even if they save money and, more importantly, reduce their impact on the environment.

As I always argue ... if American consumers had to pay for their total, environmental impact in the goods they buy -- including the nasty emissions from containerships from China -- they would demand more localized goods. But until we have such 'emission taxes,' most American consumers will blame everyone but themselves.

It's why we really don't have true free market at all here in the US. Most Americans think we Libertarians are anti-government anarchists, but we're actually just pro-"pay for the impact you cause" realists. That's why we're actually pro-emission/impact taxes, as long as they are real.

And not the 'special interest' crap like 'carbon credits' and other things that actually favor more emissions and logistical nightmares, and outsourcing and everything else.

 

[EweSeaEff]

This absolutely brings the lulz. If the media spouting fallacies is called "fake news", should a president that spews this kind of garbage get labeled as "fake president"? I was going to say "it's funny", but in reality it's sad and depressing that his base just eats this up. And what happened regarding his comments after Charlottesville that he likes to "have all the facts" before coming out and making a statement?

And for those that would like to become educated on what "clean coal" (a term coined many years ago by the coal lobby to mislead the public) is, please check out this Popular Mechanics article on the subject: How Does Clean Coal Work?.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Just more left wing hate and FAKE NEWS.

If I can clean my dishes and my car, and get rid of harmful substances, then we can clean coal.

 

[goodknightfl]

"Overpopulation" is the biggest myth ever perpetrated by statist.
.

Yep, and if they all would simply wear a solar array hat, and plug in their cell phone and I pad, the problem of power would be cured.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Just more left wing hate and FAKE NEWS.

If I can clean my dishes and my car, and get rid of harmful substances, then we can clean coal.

I'm assuming this is a joke and you are being facetious, hence the like.

 

[EweSeaEff]

Par for the course, I guess, since the Secretary of Energy can't even get his laws of economics correct.

 

[UCFBS]

No different than the US media. We EEs are just full facepalm, both parties are just proliferating non-sense.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Thought this was a good topic to revist given we just broke the all time highest temperature for recorded history in April. And CO2 levels are at the highest ever measured. But yeah, its still a debate.

 

[UCFWayne]

Thought this was a good topic to revist given we just broke the all time highest temperature for recorded history in April. And CO2 levels are at the highest ever measured. But yeah, its still a debate.

90% of the plastic in the ocean comes from asia and africa. the biggest producers of co2 are india and asia. yet none of those countries pledged to do shit in the paris climate change meetings.

the fact is, unless india and china dont agree to dramatically change, then the changes we make dont amount to much.

 

[NinjaKnight]

90% of the plastic in the ocean comes from asia and africa. the biggest producers of co2 are india and asia. yet none of those countries pledged to do shit in the paris climate change meetings.

the fact is, unless india and china dont agree to dramatically change, then the changes we make dont amount to much.

I always love when you comment on topics that you clearly have absolutely no expertise on.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

 

[UCFRogerz]

It's the cows fault.

 

[NinjaKnight]

It's the cows fault.

New chik fil a ad campaign?

 

[Crazyhole]

This is one of those arguments that is going to resolve itself regardless of our opinions. Solar is the future, and the technology is increasing faster than our ability to produce the means of using that technology. Between modern solar arrays and the battery technology that fiskar and tesla are discovering it's only a matter of time before it's economically a no-brainer to transition.

That, and I'm pretty sure I figured out how to create perpetual motion using nothing but alternators and starters.

 

[UCFRogerz]

New chik fil a ad campaign?

Anti-chik-fil-a campaign. The cows want chicken eaten, the chickens want cows eaten due to global warming.

 

[UCFBS]

To;Dr - crap in the air kills you.
A new study shows that, on average, an increase in pollution particles in the air of 10 micrograms per cubic meter cuts victims' life expectancy by 9-11 years - more than previously thought.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X17301693?via=ihub

If humans are the cause of climate change, I fear there maybe a terrible consequence to fixing it.
Moving to electric cars isn't bad. No one should really be bothered by this, they're faster, more responsive, they're just better in general.
Moving to solar isn't bad either. As equipment improves, power will be cheaper and more reliable. Outages will be mostly a thing of the past.
None of those concern me... it's steak. Cattle is a huge contributor to the effect of greenhouse gases. Methane per kg is like 20-30x more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Maybe they can figure out how to capture it, but no matter what, the price of steaks will increase.

First off, are we talking CO2 or particulate matter?

Because particulate matter has steadily gone down since the '70s. This is why asthma isn't as bad today, than just a half-century ago. It's also considered a major factor for reduction in crime rates and other changes in society, in addition to opportunity and employment.

And quite ironically, less particulate matter means more greenhouse effect, as particulate matter reflects more sunlight. Combined with the last 'cold cycle' of North Atlantic oscillation in the '70s, it's why people thought we were going to have 'Global Cooling.' Now it's 'Global Warming,' even though the cool cycle is back again.

This is why President Obama's comment about 'forest fires' and his daughter's allergies was his 'trees create smog' Reagan-esque moment. As particulate matter has continue to go down, it only increases global warming rates, and forest fires then increase particulate matter, but its still way, way down from the '70s. His daughter is way better off than any of the 5 decades prior.

CO2 != particulate matter


Secondly, the lifespan of methane in the atmosphere is much shorter-lived, by an order of magnitude, than CO2. Yes, it's still a major factor, and there's good evidence that the receding of some ice is resulting in a compounding situation.

But it not going to stick around like CO2. So that has to be factored into projections.


This is what I get tired of with the 'fast food' fear-mongering of the US media. They literally have no scientific knowledge, to the point even scientists get tired of it. Yes, Global Warming his happening. But it's not all this non-sense that gets spewed and correlated above.

Particulate matter is way, way down since the '70s. It has nothing to do with CO2 or methane except the fact that particular matter is actually an anti-greenhouse effect. It's our fighting it and reducing it that has improved our air quality, but also increased the rate of greenhouse effect.

Everything has impact, and that's why even a 'bad' effect can be a 'good' effect in another way, and vice-versa. It's called nature's balance, and we're changing it. There is no simple solution and there is no such thing as 0-impact.

Even electrical vehicles have various impacts, logistics, transmission, generation, materials and other 'requirements,' which have impacts. And the power grid is amid renovation, but it won't happen overnight.

 

[Crazyhole]

First off, are we talking CO2 or particulate matter?

Because particulate matter has steadily gone down since the '70s. This is why asthma isn't as bad today, than just a half-century ago. It's also considered a major factor for reduction in crime rates and other changes in society, in addition to opportunity and employment.

And quite ironically, less particulate matter means more greenhouse effect, as particulate matter reflects more sunlight. Combined with the last 'cold cycle' of North Atlantic oscillation in the '70s, it's why people thought we were going to have 'Global Cooling.' Now it's 'Global Warming,' even though the cool cycle is back again.

This is why President Obama's comment about 'forest fires' and his daughter's allergies was his 'trees create smog' Reagan-esque moment. As particulate matter has continue to go down, it only increases global warming rates, and forest fires then increase particulate matter, but its still way, way down from the '70s. His daughter is way better off than any of the 5 decades prior.

CO2 != particulate matter


Secondly, the lifespan of methane in the atmosphere is much shorter-lived, by an order of magnitude, than CO2. Yes, it's still a major factor, and there's good evidence that the receding of some ice is resulting in a compounding situation.

But it not going to stick around like CO2. So that has to be factored into projections.


This is what I get tired of with the 'fast food' fear-mongering of the US media. They literally have no scientific knowledge, to the point even scientists get tired of it. Yes, Global Warming his happening. But it's not all this non-sense that gets spewed and correlated above.

Particulate matter is way, way down since the '70s. It has nothing to do with CO2 or methane except the fact that particular matter is actually an anti-greenhouse effect. It's our fighting it and reducing it that has improved our air quality, but also increased the rate of greenhouse effect.

Everything has impact, and that's why even a 'bad' effect can be a 'good' effect in another way, and vice-versa. It's called nature's balance, and we're changing it. There is no simple solution and there is no such thing as 0-impact.

Even electrical vehicles have various impacts, logistics, transmission, generation, materials and other 'requirements,' which have impacts. And the power grid is amid renovation, but it won't happen overnight.

And possibly more important, the causal relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures isn't understood. There have been times in history where CO2 led global temperatures and times that it lagged.

 

[UCFBS]

I always love when you comment on topics that you clearly have absolutely no expertise on.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

India's CO2 generation has a lot more to non-fossil fuel sources, as they are not heavily industrialized in most areas of the country. At the same time, because they are not, they don't generate a lot of other pollution ... per-capita.

It's really this simple, other than Qatar and a few Middle East nations -- not just in CO2, but overall impact (e.g., heating, garbage and other, non-recycled use and impact) -- basically boils down to these 2 factors, per-capita ...

- How rural, let alone cold?
- How industrialized?

The US is pretty rural, Canada and Australia even more so, with Canada topping the climate needs for heat -- although the US moving more south is increasing A/C usage almost equally now. That's why Canada and Australia even top the US in garbage rates, per capita, Canada in heating, Australia in a lot of per-capita waste.

China is flying by us all, as they have both land mass and a lot of people. They still have a lot of unindustrialized rural regions, but that is slowly and surely changing. But China is definitely responsible for a horrendous level of particulate matter and other Nitrate, Sulfide and other emission issues the western world has long controlled since the '70s.

India is probably hitting a limit, merely because they have so many unemployed youth, and their future is not bright with their unsustained growth, unlike China. There is just not the infrastructure investment, unlike China. India actually has a lot of room to grow their CO2 under current plans, especially since -- unlike China -- they are trying to get their particulate matter under control, although have a long way to go.

Although none of this matters in the grander scheme. Why?

Paris, like Kyoto, totally ignores the seas. Abuse of the seas is rampant, and is our major issue. Use of container shipping has massive impact, and is responsible for the most particulate matter with bunker fuels. And there is little move to change this as well. That's the scary part. Which goes back to my views, and of most Libertarians, which are well-implemented by the Swiss ...

Implement impact taxes!

You start paying for all your impact, as a consumer, so you have to care. Stop blaming governments and people, let alone not seeing the EU ~ US when it comes to per-capita (look it up, we're close).

This includes not so much of a 'tariff' on importations from China, but the impact on the environment of shipping cheap goods from overseas, as well as their impact on the environment where it's made too. That's how you solve this ... without a 'trade war.'

But that's us Libertarians, we think differently ... forcing consumers to care themselves, instead of blame others. Classic 'don't want to know what the butcher is doing' to get a steak.

 

[UCFBS]

And possibly more important, the causal relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures isn't understood. There have been times in history where CO2 led global temperatures and times that it lagged.

Part of the UN study last decade got seriously debunked because they only looked at 25 year temperatures of western Europe and the eastern US, which is completely explained by North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). There is also a reason why the gulf stream is slowing down, as it did in the '70s too, and even more so in the '30s.

I.e., this current NAO 'cold cycle' of the '10s is more like the '30s, than the '70s. It's going to get worse into the early '20s, just like it did in the early '40s as well.

E.g., the winters like those during Operation Barbossa are coming. And the US and even the Atlantic seaboard had hurricane seasons and northerly pushes in the '30s just like we had in the '70s, including a Cat-5 hit Tampa directly in '35.

Anyone who doesn't factor that in deserves to be proven wrong, as part of the UN study was within 10 years.

At the same time, the other half of the UN study isn't wrong. We're warming up, and it's CO2-related because of man. That's the thing, you have to look at this over centuries, not just years.

 

[Poolside Knight]

anyone know what percentage of UCF's campus is solar powered now?

 

[Knight_Classes_begin_7pm]

I'm sorry, are you actually arguing that breathing in coal particles isn't bad for you? Please elaborate on your position, I'm genuinely curious to see how you attempt to rationalize your view.

This is the shit that really pisses me off the most, and why I can't wait for the moronic old-guard Republican party to finally die out from old age and/or inbreeding.

frump supporter....gun nut

 

[EweSeaEff]

anyone know what percentage of UCF's campus is solar powered now?

According to the most recent data that is readily available (FY 15-16), about 4.6% of the main campus's total energy load was generated by solar. That said, there was an RFP a year or so ago for a 10-12 MW solar project. A friend's and fellow UCF alum's company (ESA Renewables of Sanford) was awarded the contract, but the last I heard the BOT vote was delayed due to their wanting more technical data.

 

[UCFWayne]

I always love when you comment on topics that you clearly have absolutely no expertise on.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

omg how can someone possibly use a different source on climate change data?!?!?!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

you have to add usa + europe + india to even beat out china. if you combine china and india together you have to add the next 6 largest contributors to come close.

you didnt even take into account the first line in my post and talk about the sheer volume of plastic waste alone that they let into the oceans. gee i wonder why you didnt talk shit about that?

but yea, you are right, im wrong you are so smart and brave.

 

[NinjaKnight]

omg how can someone possibly use a different source on climate change data?!?!?!!

.

You do realize that your source agrees with mine..and proves your statement 100% wrong? Right? USA is #2 in CO2 production. That is not insignificant.

you didnt even take into account the first line in my post and talk about the sheer volume of plastic waste alone that they let into the oceans. gee i wonder why you didnt talk shit about that?

but yea, you are right, im wrong you are so smart and brave.

Maybe because no one was talking about plastic waste to begin with, and you just completely changed the subject? Plus I wouldn't be surprised if it was wrong, just like your statement about India being the biggest producer of CO2.

Maybe try educating yourself instead of blindly following your parties lines on this matter.