|
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 2428431)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific consensus -- a consensus supported by 99 % of the people who know far more about the issue than us pilots -- is wrong. Let's assume that climate change actually isn't being caused and accelerated by human activity, specifically carbon emissions.
Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you? Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives. Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that? The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas. But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead. Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 2428431)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific consensus -- a consensus supported by 99 % of the people who know far more about the issue than us pilots -- is wrong. Let's assume that climate change actually isn't being caused and accelerated by human activity, specifically carbon emissions.
Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you? Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives. Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that? The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas. But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead. Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents. http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/26/wsj-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-what-is-the-origin-of-the-false-belief-that-almost-all-scientists-agree-about-global-warming/ As for the rest of your scaremongering, the us is now oil independent and we produce enough of our own oil that we for the first time are exporting it to other countries. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 2428431)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the scientific consensus -- a consensus supported by 99 % of the people who know far more about the issue than us pilots -- is wrong. Let's assume that climate change actually isn't being caused and accelerated by human activity, specifically carbon emissions.
Even if you assume that, there are plenty of reasons why reducing global consumption of petrochemical fuels is a very, very good idea. One of those reasons should appeal to even the most ardent Breitbart fans, and that is simply this: the more dependent the US is on oil, the more beholden we are to nations such as Saudi Arabia (from which 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed on 9-11), Iran (need I say more?) And so forth. The money we spend at the pump, in many ways, finds its way into the pockets of terrorists, via Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Saudi funding of other fundamentalist groups, and so on. The more we invest in alternative fuels, such as electric cars, solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, etc, the less influence these hostile nations will have over us. And they'll have a great deal less money to contribute to those who directly do us harm. If you're a Trump supporters and you subscribe to Bannon's vision of economic nationalism, how could this not appeal to you? Oil is just one in a long series of energy options, and its time is ending. Do we drive around in steam-powered cars? Do we heat our homes mostly with coal? No, we don't. Twenty or thirty years from now (I hope), oil will be a specialty fuel, probably used mainly in aviation and to make plastics. The majority of cars will be electric (hopefully powered more by solar electricity than coal-fired power plants), or hydrogen fuel cell powered, or -- and this is the ideal -- something we haven't even invented, that's better than the above alternatives. Whichever nation develops and perfects a mass-scale replacement for oil will be a nation whose economic might will have to be reckoned with. Now, do we want that nation to be China? Or are we going to stand up and lead the effort? Simply because die-hard conservatives can't stand Al Gore, or don't believe climate change is real -- are we willing to stick our heads in the sand and continue burning all the fossil fuels we can, with no effort to develop a better replacement? What is the point in that? The biggest mistake made in the early days of discussion about global warming is that the activists who raised the public profile of the issue, went about it in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way. They tried to tell red-meat-eating, pickup-truck-driving Americans that their lifestyles were harming the planet. Well, we Americans don't like to be preached to in that way. I think if the narrative had been framed differently -- 'Look, the more oil we buy, the more resources guys like Bin Laden will have to wage war on us', we wouldn't be so ridiculously divided on a topic of science that is being approached like religion (either you believe, or you don't). But it's too late for that, alas. But every time you fill up your F150, just think of how you're making America less secure. You are. You can't deny it. But if it makes you feel better to know you're flipping the bird at Al Gore or whichever 'snowflake liberal' happens to annoy you, well...go right ahead. Just realize that the world you're leaving for your kids will be worse than the one you inherited from your parents. |
Originally Posted by hilltopflyer
(Post 2428504)
What about my F250? And my tractor, my boat, and my 4 wheelers?
What is it with this obsession with petrochemical-powered vehicles? |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 2428567)
Ever driven a Tesla? Vastly superior to most sedans in its price range. Insane acceleration, whisper-quiet, and zero emissions.
What is it with this obsession with petrochemical-powered vehicles? |
Originally Posted by hilltopflyer
(Post 2428569)
Can a tesla pull my tractor or boat? And ya teslas are great I actually am thinking about getting the cheap model as my commuter car since the airport has free electricity to me. I mean why aren't we flying electric planes everywhere? What's the obsession with jet fueled powered planes? Only problem where I live is I need my big truck to navigate snowy county roads. So until teslas makes a truck for my needs I'll stick with my diesel F250.
What I am saying is that the sooner we replace oil as a primary fuel, the better. 10 years from now we'll have electric F350s, boats, and whatever other toys you want (aside from commercial aircraft). As a nation, we should be investing heavily in bringing replacement technologies to market. It's a win-win: we create jobs with the development of the new tech (admittedly, it'd probably be a transfer of jobs from petrochemical extraction and refinement, rather than a net creation of jobs), and we quit pouring so much carbon into the atmosphere. We also deprive nations like Iran and Saudi of their leverage over us. Show me the one negative result of such a scenario. |
Originally Posted by hilltopflyer
(Post 2428569)
Can a tesla pull my tractor or boat? And ya teslas are great I actually am thinking about getting the cheap model as my commuter car since the airport has free electricity to me. I mean why aren't we flying electric planes everywhere? What's the obsession with jet fueled powered planes? Only problem where I live is I need my big truck to navigate snowy county roads. So until teslas makes a truck for my needs I'll stick with my diesel F250.
But if you plug it in to a coal fired electrical plant you really aren't saving the planet from carbon. |
Originally Posted by qball
(Post 2428582)
Teslas are great cars. Rode in one on a YWG layover. The acceleration was mind blowing.
But if you plug it in to a coal fired electrical plant you really aren't saving the planet from carbon. |
How much electricity is actually produced in those ways? Also, you have to count all the energy ( dirty energy) that goes into building Teslas and the nasty bit of producing the batteries. Then, there's taxpayers earning median wages paying for the tax break.
GF |
Originally Posted by qball
(Post 2428582)
Teslas are great cars. Rode in one on a YWG layover. The acceleration was mind blowing.
But if you plug it in to a coal fired electrical plant you really aren't saving the planet from carbon. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 2428594)
Sure, but if that electricity is generated from hydro, solar, geothermal, or wind... Whole different story.
|
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 2428579)
Nobody's saying you need to get rid of your F250. Heck, I own a turbocharged piston aircraft, and they're going to pry that out of my cold dead hands. And electric airplanes are still a long way off, although there are some very light, all-electric GA aircraft that are showing promise.
What I am saying is that the sooner we replace oil as a primary fuel, the better. 10 years from now we'll have electric F350s, boats, and whatever other toys you want (aside from commercial aircraft). As a nation, we should be investing heavily in bringing replacement technologies to market. It's a win-win: we create jobs with the development of the new tech (admittedly, it'd probably be a transfer of jobs from petrochemical extraction and refinement, rather than a net creation of jobs), and we quit pouring so much carbon into the atmosphere. We also deprive nations like Iran and Saudi of their leverage over us. Show me the one negative result of such a scenario. |
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
(Post 2428621)
How much electricity is actually produced in those ways? Also, you have to count all the energy ( dirty energy) that goes into building Teslas and the nasty bit of producing the batteries. Then, there's taxpayers earning median wages paying for the tax break.
GF |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2428660)
The premise of the electric vehicle is that someday we will invent a battery technology that doesn't pollute more than gas. Right now, a Tesla has to be driven for more than 8 years to have a break even carbon footprint over a gasser, then it starts saving the environment:rolleyes:. Green tech isn't green, it's setting up an infrastructure that could be green some day, if we can go around the laws of thermodynamics.
I'd be curious to see the source of your 8 year break even. http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...ull-report.pdf Page 22 For a full-size 265-mile-range BEV, on average, the extra manufacturing emissions are o set within 19,000 miles, or in about 16 months of driving, based on the sales-weighted elec- tricity emissions of where EVs are sold today (assuming a 265-mile-range BEV travels the same rst-year mileage as the typical new gasoline car). When driving a BEV recharged from the cleanest regional grids in the United States, these extra manufacturing emissions are o set within the rst 15,000 miles of driving, or in just under one year for the aver- age driver. On the dirtiest grid they are o set within 39,000 miles, or in less than three years for the typical vehicle owner. For a full-size 265-mile-range BEV, manufacturing emis- sions are approximately 68 percent, or 6 tons of CO2e higher than a comparable conventional gasoline vehicle. Total global warming emissions of the full-size BEV, when powered by the electricity grid mix representative of where BEVs are sold today, are 53 percent lower than the comparable full-size gasoline car, thereby saving 54 tons of CO2e. The global warming emissions from manufacturing a full-size BEV are about 33 percent of its lifetime global warming emissions; the remaining 67 percent come from driving it. |
Originally Posted by I like BIG Bus
(Post 2428556)
Seems as if the words 'climate change' has thrown someone into a, what was it again, "religious, mouth-frothing sort of hysteria" and made them come across in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way.
And if you don't believe it, I suppose you would support doing more research to determine the exact effects, since many scientists are concerned climate change could be the end of a significant portion of species on the planet? |
Originally Posted by BlueMoon
(Post 2428681)
Yea, electric vehicles have a higher carbon foot print to manufacturer, but produce less carbon over its life span, but is recouped rather quickly.
I'd be curious to see the source of your 8 year break even. http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...ull-report.pdf Page 22 Page 21 Tesla's are a fun, good looking car, but not some environmental friendly alternative. |
Originally Posted by Lemons
(Post 2428623)
Those sources are not viable today.
From Columbus's expedition of 1492 (which was derided and rejected by his native Portugal as an impossible dream), to man's conquest of space (which was also derided as pure fantasy by those who warned that the vacuum of space would be instantly fatal and the technology would never be invented to conquer it), to the personal computing revolution, history has been full of naysayers who are always ready to tell you why it can't be done. Fortunately, history tends to relegate people like that to the sidelines. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 2428632)
Cool. Then some Democratic presidential candidate can claim, "We're gonna put those gas and oil rig workers out of work!" :rolleyes: and then lose the election to Eric Trump.
The question isn't whether oil will be replaced as the planet's primary source of transportation-related fuel (cars, boats, planes, etc) in our lifetime. It will. The question is, what's going to replace it, and who's going to hold the patents on that technology? Listening to the Trumpniks on this forum, I guess they're happy to let, say, China take that lead. All because they want to spite them durn liberals. It's utterly perplexing to me. Climate change shouldn't be a question of belief or even politics. Even if you insist on denying it's happening, it's blindingly obvious that our future economic and political security depend on identifying a viable replacement and bringing that technology to the mass market. Some would say that's not the job of government, that we should leave it to market forces to sort out. To that I would say, if it had not been for the United States government, if we'd relied on private industry to take us into space, we still would be looking up at the moon and wondering when, if ever, we'd visit it. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 2428852)
Listening to the Trumpniks on this forum, I guess they're happy to let, say, China take that lead. All because they want to spite them durn liberals. It's utterly perplexing to me.
|
Turbosina,
I'll make a not very brave prediction here--petroleum won't be replaced in transportation in this century. Oil has too much of a lead in energy density over any foreseeable electrical source. It's something like 20 times more energy-dense than any electrical power source. The energy density of jet fuel is 12,000 Wh/kg versus the best current rechargeable battery is about 250 Wh/kg. It will take a major breakthrough or nuclear power to replace oil. GF |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 2428632)
Cool. Then some Democratic presidential candidate can claim, "We're gonna put those gas and oil rig workers out of work!" :rolleyes: and then lose the election to Eric Trump.
|
Originally Posted by hilltopflyer
(Post 2428100)
There is probably a reason no one wants to have kids with him.
|
Originally Posted by LNL76
(Post 2428151)
My kids are adults. Were they ever selfish bleeps, sure, still are sometimes. So are you, I'm sure!
Either way, a human wins over an animal every damn time. Btw, would you want your wife, parents, siblings or friends killed to spare an animal? If not, you're a hypocrite of the highest order. To the second question, I love my family, friends, and my own animals over those who are not part of my family. Therefore, of course I would prefer my loved ones rescued over those I do not know - to include animals I don't know. To ask you a similar question, would you not prefer YOUR loved ones to be rescued over unknown strangers? Of course you would. Hypocritical much yourself? So where were you guys. Oh yea... Climate change, Tesslas, F-250's, Republicans, Democrats, and a hurricane. Carry on. ;) |
Originally Posted by Lemons
(Post 2428542)
The 97% claim isn't true and has been debunked time and time again.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/26/wsj-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-what-is-the-origin-of-the-false-belief-that-almost-all-scientists-agree-about-global-warming/ As for the rest of your scaremongering, the us is now oil independent and we produce enough of our own oil that we for the first time are exporting it to other countries. https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?c=0&s=trending#8da560713657 |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 2428852)
Some would say that's not the job of government, that we should leave it to market forces to sort out. To that I would say, if it had not been for the United States government, if we'd relied on private industry to take us into space, we still would be looking up at the moon and wondering when, if ever, we'd visit it.
|
Originally Posted by Lemons
(Post 2428623)
Those sources are not viable today.
And if little old Denmark, with only 5.5 million people, can find the resources to make it a viable source of energy don't try and convince me that the richest country in the world does not have the ability to make it viable. |
Originally Posted by NEDude
(Post 2429089)
Denmark gets over 40% of its power from wind, and has on multiple occasions been able to meet or exceed its daily power needs purely from wind. Not bad for a power source that is "not viable".
And if little old Denmark, with only 5.5 million people, can find the resources to make it a viable source of energy don't try and convince me that the richest country in the world does not have the ability to make it viable. |
Originally Posted by qball
(Post 2429097)
Wind energy might be viable but it has an enormous footprint for the amount of energy it generates. They have been spreading like a cancer across this country and of course are often put in places where the land is not tillable. They kill untold numbers of birds and bats and are just plain eyesores in some of the last wild places left.
|
Originally Posted by qball
(Post 2429097)
They kill untold numbers of birds and bats and are just plain eyesores in some of the last wild places left.
|
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 2428845)
....From Columbus's expedition of 1492 (which was derided and rejected by his native Portugal as an impossible dream)......
This. I'll make a not very brave prediction here--petroleum won't be replaced in transportation in this century. Oil has too much of a lead in energy density over any foreseeable electrical source. It's something like 20 times more energy-dense than any electrical power source. The energy density of jet fuel is 12,000 Wh/kg versus the best current rechargeable battery is about 250 Wh/kg. It will take a major breakthrough or nuclear power to replace oil. GF But air travel? You need energy density, and that seems unlikely to jump 400 orders of magnitude. Here's an interesting article on the false eco-economy of windmills. It cites a lot of numbers that I have not personally researched to verify, but a quick perusal (with an engineering background) says "plausible and in the ballpark." I believe the UK "Spectator" is a reputable magazine similar to Esquire. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/...global-energy/ 70 years ago, almost no homes had air conditioners, yet almost every home had a solar-powered clothes dryer, and a carbon-free washing machine. It was a hand-cranked wash tub, and a clothes line. I wonder how many climate-warrior homemakers would give up their front-loaders and "spring-fresh" fabric softeners to do things the old-fashioned way. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 2429112)
And oil refineries, plus the plan to turn the AWNR into a driller's paradise.... Are better how??
|
Originally Posted by NEDude
(Post 2429089)
Denmark gets over 40% of its power from wind, and has on multiple occasions been able to meet or exceed its daily power needs purely from wind. Not bad for a power source that is "not viable".
And if little old Denmark, with only 5.5 million people, can find the resources to make it a viable source of energy don't try and convince me that the richest country in the world does not have the ability to make it viable. |
Originally Posted by Lemons
(Post 2429148)
Denmark is a tiny nation.
|
Originally Posted by Lemons
(Post 2428956)
Bernie actually suggested a special tax for "gas guzzlers" and meat.
|
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2429215)
I have to give Bernie credit for flying around in coach on regular airlines, usually liberals fly around in private jets to expel their climate drivel.
|
Originally Posted by Xtreme87
(Post 2429264)
My favorite is Leonardo Dicaprio preaching about climate change while chilling on his 450 foot mega yacht.
|
The problem of both wind and solar is how to store all that energy for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine--we're back to energy density and batteries. Baseload power must come from a reliable source. When climate change warriors embrace nuclear power, I'll believe 'em.
GF |
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
(Post 2429291)
The problem of both wind and solar is how to store all that energy for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine--we're back to energy density and batteries. Baseload power must come from a reliable source. When climate change warriors embrace nuclear power, I'll believe 'em.
GF |
Originally Posted by Lemons
(Post 2429273)
It's one to examples of why the entire climate change alarmism is nonsense.
|
Originally Posted by badflaps
(Post 2429207)
Buy a car in Denmark.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:31 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands