As Bill Burr said if we could get rid of half the people on the planet we could cure human impact on
climate change. Too many people on this planet requiring energy, food, etc so if we want the climate to improve we need to abort every baby for the next 25 years. Otherwise everything else is BS.
Replies to: As Bill Burr said if we could get rid of half the people on the planet we could cure human impact on
There is a contingent of the far left that would like to see us back in caves with a halt put to any
Progress.
So Bill Burr is Thanos.
(no message)
If Thanos is a redheaded comedian, yes.
(no message)
Or like all you underdeveloped countries have to stay that
way so that us first world arseholes get to virtue signal that we love old mom earth.
Yeah we destroyed the planet we got ours fuck your third world countries.
(no message)
Exactly fuck you, you don’t need no electricity or potable water.
Two things that every modern civilization needs. Guess what fellas it takes nasty carbon producing thingies to get them.
That's one way of looking at it...or we could cut our fossil fuel usage in half...your choice.
Actually, that decision is being made as we speak...Car makers going all-in on EVs is just one example.
Global fossil fuel usage will be much higher ten years from now
Why? The developing world needs energy. They can't afford solar and wind farms, and Tesla's. End of story.
Oh, and China is accelerating it's build out of coal plants. China is responsible for roughly 30% of global emissions. They only pledged that their emissions would top out in 2030 as part of the useless Paris Climate Accord.
Everyone needs energy...but the percentage obtained from fossil fuels needs to be much smaller...
As for China...(you can look this up yourself, for verification)...
>During their 13th 'Five-Year-Plan' period from 2016 to 2020, China built 20 new nuclear power plants with a total capacity of 23.4 GW, doubling their total capacity to 47 GW...and that is expected to happen again during their next 5-year plan, which has a new target of 70 GW of nuclear generation before 2025.
>China also has an active program for developing commercial 'Fast Reactors' that can turn nuclear 'waste' into fuel...thus extending their viability by hundreds of years.
China expects nuclear power to be their dominant source of energy in the not-too-distant future...we would be wise to follow suit (or better yet...lead).
Don't forget that British Petroleum puts out an estimate on how many years proven oil reserves will last, given current consumption levels...right now, it's 53.3 years...hopefully, that figure causes you to get off the "status quo" view of our energy situation. We'll always need FFs for many unique uses...let's not incinerate them when there are other energy sources that can do every day jobs.
Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/?sh=db57fdc778cf
Not remotely my point
Not percentages, but in absolute terms.
I'll repeat - in tens years, the amount of fossil fuel energy used globally will be much higher than today.
I'm not saying that FF usage won't rise in the short term, but there are many plans being
formulated (see link for one of them) that project a 'rollover' of that usage before too long...perhaps by 2040, as the linked study predicts...btw, the link is very FF specific, with little analysis of alternative energy sources presented.
The overall strategy should be clear...develop a plan that reduces FFs dramatically, ASAP...you don't have a problem with that, do you?
Link: https://www.copenhageneconomics.com/dyn/resources/Publication/publicationPDF/6/386/1485851778/copenhagen-economics-2017-the-future-of-fossil-fuels.pdf
Plans and studies are nice
It's impossible to project climate impact next week, yet so many hang on every word of these multi-decade projections as if they are gospel. These studies are typically accompanied by dire headlines about how we MUST ACT NOW, along with pithy quotes from the usual douchebags who love to lecture us.
Meanwhile, in the real world, this is happening:
"Coal remains at the heart of China’s flourishing economy. In 2019, 58 percent of the country’s total energy consumption came from coal, which helps explain why China accounts for 28 percent of all global CO2 emissions. And China continues to build coal-fired power plants at a rate that outpaces the rest of the world combined. In 2020, China brought 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power into operation, more than three times what was brought on line everywhere else.
A total of 247 gigawatts of coal power is now in planning or development, nearly six times Germany’s entire coal-fired capacity. China has also proposed additional new coal plants that, if built, would generate 73.5 gigawatts of power, more than five times the 13.9 gigawatts proposed in the rest of the world combined. Last year, Chinese provinces granted construction approval to 47 gigawatts of coal power projects, more than three times the capacity permitted in 2019."
And that's just China (hailed as a signatory of the Paris Climate Accord, btw). The billions more in the developing world will turn to FF for their energy needs, because for them, there is no alternative.
FF usage will increase and remain the planet's dominant fuel source for a very long time. Hoping for a reduction in the next 20, 30 years is just wishful thinking.
So, to your original post...'we could just cut our FF usage in half'. No, we can't. That would be impossible over the next several decades.
Link: China
You’re a dope. If you cut the population in half you cut energy use in half. You will be dead before
the world has 50% EV’s and clean fuels. Who is going to power the EV grid when the sun goes down and there is no wind? Jump in your flying car and try to make it across the Atlantic. Get real man. Kill all up to 50% that need energy for the next 25 years. That will work. Your solution is in La La land.
Easy there on the name calling...I'm sure you've heard of Nuclear Power Plants...they don't emit CO2
and can power all those EVs...will it happen tomorrow?...of course not...but we can bring about such change in a surprisingly short time...if we come together on the "Need" and "Strategy" for it.
For example...after the 1973 OPEC Oil Embargo, France made the decision ("Messmer Plan") to not be held hostage again by OPEC and started building standardized Nuclear Plants that ended up with the installation of 56 plants in 15 years, allowing the country to produce 70% of its electricity from that source.
Admittedly, it's not that easy a task here in the U.S. due to our very litigious society, but it can be done with a sufficient political majority, that is optimally, bi-partisan.
BTW, I do not support Wind and Solar for 'Grid Level' power generation, for the reasons you mention...and for the enormous cost of battery backup that would be required...nonetheless, there are roles for those technologies as well.
Refresh my memory...are you part of an FBO that provides aviation fuel?
FBO, now that’s insulting. You don’t have to look very far to find out who I am.
(no message)
I completely agree. So why is this not the cornerstone of green plans?
If the climate change impact could be so catastrophic, why is nuclear not the absolute centerpiece of any plan to reduce CO2? If anything, we're shutting down and phasing existing plants out.
Why?
Glad you agree...as I mentioned to Baron, Nuclear Power has been the "Red-Headed Stepchild" when it
comes to political support from both sides of the aisle...when oil was just gushing out of the ground, no one really cared to see nuclear power flourish, especially in states that had large fossil fuel interests...but now that we have to squeeze rocks to get it and the cumulative effects of fossil fueled CO2 emissions are being felt, there's perhaps a new 'attitude' toward this technology...as for other states that are a bit 'bluer', the reality of what it takes (in $$$, land use and reliability) to go 100% Renewable is coming into view and can't be ignored...so, although not 'timely' or wisely anticipated, cold hard facts are beginning to shift national focus toward Nuclear Power (see link on Biden admin view of NP in reply to Baron).
I'll say it again...make your voice heard to those who need to know what you think...your Senators and Representatives.
People are inordinately fearful of radiation. It must be human nature.
The silent killer or something.
Fukushima resulted in a tiny number of deaths. Thousands killed by earthquake/tsunami, yet we focus on the single digit radioactive toll.
This is the difficult problem for nuclear, imo. Very tough to conquer the nimbyism it spawns.
I have no gripe with those who are fearful, but not yet informed on the realities of nuclear power
risks...this is a very esoteric technology...the challenge is for those of us who do understand those realities to do an effective job of communicating them...and the audience is understandably very large.
Speaking of Fukushima...here are some notes that don't make the news...es
>None of the reactors was put out of action by the nearby 9.0 Tohoku earthquake shocks
>Two of the five Fukushima reactors were constructed higher up on the bluff and kept operating after the Tsunami
>There were no deaths attributed to acute radiation syndrome
>Over 1,600 people died due to evacuations of sick and elderly patients from care facilities...subsequent evaluations showed that radiation level standards requiring evacuation were set too low and were later increased by a factor of 350 (see change in U.S. EPA standards)
>Newer 'GEN-IV' reactor designs that inherently avoid the aftermath of the Fukushima core meltdowns are being developed, and one of them has received Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval for its design...a test reactor build is being planned.
None of this is to say that Nuclear Power doesn't require careful attention in design, construction and operation...but the overall track record, in terms of public safety, is outstanding.
How many new nuc plants have been built in the last 40 yrs & how many have gone off line?
The main resistance on these have been the Democrats. Why is that? i know, but I want to hear what you think.
I've been involved with Nuclear Power since 1974...you don't have to tell me the saga...
Nuclear Power has never had a political 'Home'...GOP Senators and Reps have supported their coal, oil and gas interests, while Dem Pols have harbored anti-nukes and 100% renewable advocates...but we're getting down near the bottom of the barrel now (or use whatever analogy you want) and decisions need to be made based on physical facts.
Fortunately, it appears (see link) that the Biden admin 'gets it' when it comes to the need for Nuclear Power...my fingers are crossed, but just in case, I'm actively engaged with my congressman on the issue...wouldn't be a bad idea for you and all the other members of this board who support Nuclear Power to email your own representatives, or even go to one of their 'Town Halls' and express that support.
Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/08/17/what-will-a-biden-harris-administration-do-for-nuclear-energy/?sh=6be47c51dd9c
Great. I agree with you completely on something.
(no message)
How many Infinity Gems have you accrued thus far? (I need to know how worried to get about this).
(no message)
As I said, hit me up when all of these
hypocrite climate change arseholes stop flying in on private planes and being chauffeured to the latest to be seen party in their limos, and SUV’s. Fook them. Who the fook are they to tell anyone they have to change their life.
Our “climate envoy” should be immediately fired. Just disgraceful. The planet is burning but that won’t stop me from being a carbon hog to be seen at Barry’s party.
Frank, I'm sure you realize that we'll be using fossil fuels for many years in cases where there are
no suitable alternative power sources (e.g. jet planes)...no one is advocating a "guillotine break" with FFs...the transition will take time and it won't be absolute...but the sooner we all come together on a plan, the better off we'll be.
I'll take this opportunity to again recommend a Google search for "David J.C. MacKay" and his free, downloadable book "Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air"...IMO it provides an excellent overview (albeit with a need to accept numbers) of Why and How we need to shift our current energy policy...
Yeah that’s fine but live what you preach.
Don’t be part of the problem and then tell everyone else they need to sacrifice.
I mean really our “climate envoy” is flying to parties on a private jet? You good with that? In an equitable world he should be fired. If it’s really a “code red” then he’s a code disgrace
Thank you Frankie. We have an elite claiming fossil fuels is the enemy. Me thinks he talks out of
both sides of his mouth. He maybe a nuclear power expert but try to power aircraft with that energy. And if they believe there is an alternative to jet fuel for flights. I will watch as they take off with renewal jet fuel made from duck fat.
C'mon, PB, I've already stated that we'll be using lots of FFs for many years, and for some uses
there's no good alternative at all in sight...one of those could well be jet travel...I'm not sure if I mentioned it, but my Dad was an airline pilot after the war, and my sister flew commuter and corporate jets...very likely to an airport near you. I have no illusions about how that industry will be powered in the foreseeable future...so move your throttle to idle on that score.
I don't know how you assign "elite" status to posters, but I'm a guy with engineering degrees and several years of experience in the nuclear industry...all I'm doing is giving information and opinions that anyone else with my background could/would give...nothing elitist about that...btw, I'm sure you're 'elite' in your field.
It’s like everything else it runs into the reality of the world.
This utopian you need to sacrifice for my elite vision is totally contrary to the needs of the developing world. The PROC is also giving it the middle finger. So will India. We are deforesting half the south in the name of renewables. Fookin arrogant humans like our so called “climate envoy”.
He actually said we should start randomly sinking cruise ships.
But yes, his idea of "just stop fucking". Stop having kids. Is valid.
Not enough ships. I suggest the D’s run on a sterilization platform if they are that worried
They already want to kill infants after birth. So let’s start getting rid of the disabled, mentally challenged and certainly the fatties.
Yep. The fatties. They gotta go!
(no message)