UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

Everyone sees this… even those behind the green new deal. But they hate the country… as a projection of self hate.

At this point in time, there exists no "green" energy that can provide enough reliable power for the nation at anywhere near a reasonable cost. Solar, wind power, etc., are all incapable of producing enough energy, and simply aren't reliable.

Furthermore, just about all of these "alternate fuels" projects are dead ends, since they consume way more energy that they produce by being burnt. There are some that may be promising, such as making ethanol from switchgrass, but that's a long ways away.

Also, most plastics are synthesized from petroleum, and trying to synthesize them from other sources is highly inefficient, and expensive. Good luck trying to manufacture the wide variety of polymers that this nation uses from something like soybean oil...

Fossil fuels are here to stay, and nothing will change that until some truly groundbreaking technology is developed.

I still get blank stares from people when I ask them how those Tokamak reactors (nuclear fusion) are doing... They don't seem to understand that they still can't reach the break-even point with those.

First, as the attached "free book" by the late David JC MacKay (Google his name for a 'Wiki Bio') explains...we have two motivations for stopping the BURNING of Fossil Fuels...1) the 'Finiteness' of FFs, and 2) Rapid Climate Change, with it's impact of human living conditions and in many cases, survival.

Next, I'm probably more vocal about total reliance on "Renewables" than you are...I have already met with my Congressman on this issue and have continued to work with staff members in D.C. to emphasize the need for Nuclear Power...answer questions on safety and waste disposal...and remind them of the need for incredibly expensive "Storage" systems when contemplating only Renewables for 'Grid Level' Energy...we'll start having new, less expensive, more versatile, and even safer Nukes when they've completed demonstration tests...probably by 2030...meanwhile, we hang on with what we've got technology wise, and that includes gas-fired power plants, as well as existing Nukes, and some additional Wind/Solar plants.

I agree with you to a large degree on bio-fuels, but need to know more about that option, especially for aviation.

Fusion Energy not only requires 'Breakeven', it also has other issues...the first design is probably going to involve Deuterium and Tritium (radioactive) which will become very hard to contain as well as challenging to supply (i.e. Tritium from Lithium)...then there's the effect of 14 MeV neutrons on materials for shielding and the structures...there's lots more to be done before it lights any LEDs...but never say never.

If you haven't seen my link before, give it a look...solid science...not "Hot Air" and emotions.


Link: https://withouthotair.com

likely extend into the 2040 timeframe to complete...

Fossil Fuels are definitely here to stay...but not for burning...GEN-IV Advanced Nuclear Reactors, which are now funded and under development will begin operation in six to eight years...Wind, Solar and Hydro will also play a role in so far as their 'Variability' can be taken into account...as for Fusion Reactors, while I was just getting started working on Fast Breeder Reactors in the mid-1970s, we were given a presentation by a representative of the Lawrence Livermore Lab on that subject...let's just say that we wish them every success, but our transition away from FFs is not dependent on Fusion for success.

One thing for certain...FFs are definitely "Finite"...we need to make the switch...no time like the present.

read the entire piece, but pay special attention to the "Speed..." section...both scientists agree that the earth's troposphere's temperature is increasing, but one of them is concerned about the speed with which it's rising, while noting that humans aren't likely to be able to adapt to such rapid changes very well (e.g. crop loss...rising sea level...)...here is how Logan Mitchell analogizes it...

--------------------------
If a motorist is in a car speeding 60 mph toward a stoplight, Mitchell questions why the driver would not slow that car down in advance of the stopping point and take some steps along the way to reduce the impact of a collision, i.e., reducing carbon emissions.

“The key point to understand and communicate is that the actual temperature that the Earth is at doesn’t matter. Humans and civilization can adapt to any given temperature. What’s a problem is the ‘speed’ of climate change. Civilization has trouble adapting to rapid climate change and that is why we care.”
---------------------------

Does this help?


Link: https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/4/15/22260474/climate-change-debate-some-detractors-say-earth-not-in-crisis-politics-anthropogenic-global-warming

(no message)

(no message)

Link: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/china-warming-richard-lindzen

here are a couple of excerpts from his Wiki Bio...

----------------------
According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[71] "Dr. Lindzen ACCEPTS THE ELEMENTARY TENETS OF CLIMATE SCIENCE. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point 'nutty.' He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[71] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[9] and offered more support in a 2009 paper.[51] (emphasis mine)
----------------------
Third-party characterizations of Lindzen[edit]

An April 30, 2012 article in The New York Times included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it's wrong science. I don't think it's intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, ANOTHER M.I.T. SCIENTIST, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, 'We're sure it's not a problem.' It's a special kind of risk, because it's a risk to the collective civilization."[71] (emphasis mine)
----------------------

So, even Dr. Lindzen accepts the 'Elementary Tenets of Climate Science'...i.e. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, increasing in quantity due to human activity, and it is warming the planet...yet he refuses to postulate what constant increases and accumulation of CO2 would do to the global environment...pretty weak Climate Science IMO.


Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Views_on_climate_change

(no message)

(no message)

get back to me with your comments on that material when you've finished.

And apparently the expert that you linked to. So.....who cares? Dimon isn't cutting off investment into fossil fuels. No one is. So....again, who cares? Means nothing.

in his perception...I'm waiting for his reply...Jamie Dimon's comments are just a side issue to that fundamental disbelief of his (Nigel).

I'm off to the Food Bank...see you later.

You completely fail to understand my issue with Climate Alarmist Morons, and simply pass it off as a 'fundamental disbelief in Climate Change'.

(no message)

This is why I rarely engage you. You are all over the place and can't address things directly.

your issue?

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Or, by me outing Dr. Herman, does that mean you're gonna report him to some board?

Bully, a notorious liar, and a puppy handler (Groomer) who has a rather long leash on the board (pun) ;)