|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 02 2017 12:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 12:34 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the places you could try to convince Americans to migrate to, France is probably far from their top choice. Macron tries too hard to try to look cool and hip. Thought he was good in this one, and I'm not a fan. I don't really understand why us french speaking people in general can't get better at english though. I mean yeah "th-" is really not intuitive at all for a french speaker but after I fucked it up for a while I got to somewhere at least half decent, his were just embarrassing.
I think you're being a bit too harsh here.
I get your point as I myself really hate it whenever I hear german people speak with bad english, most likely since I think it's awkward myself but I as a non-frenchy didn't get that impression from his statement at all.
So it's probably just us looking at things we're aware and insecure about ourselves while other people really don't care all that much 
But I agree, I really liked that statement as well.
//rip, got ninja'd
|
|
|
On June 02 2017 19:56 shell wrote:
USA was a beacon of hope and progress, nowadays is a beacon of violence and a bad influence all over the world
The americans that voted for Trump will carry the weight of misfortune they will cause for USA and this planet, it will end badly..
I just hope it ends with a impeachment in the near future, instead of more wars...
The oil / banking / weapons lobby controls the USA for decades, but now it has reached a point where not only they don't care about their impact in other countries or the world, they don't care at all about any americans.. everything is to be grinded for a few more % in profit!
I'm just glad i'm european, we do have our own problems (most of them caused by the USA, like the last couple of economic crisis) but we are indeed a beacon of democracy and hope for mankind
I still haven't figured out how to feel about Trump ignoring Exxon's CEO, when what he ignored was his advice to at least stick with the superficial commitment to reducing emissions.
Trump is so bad, Exxon is the socially responsible one. This is like the guy who gets cut off before last call being your designated driver. Then Trump decked em', snatched the keys, and is proceeding to jam them into the wrong car.
|
On June 02 2017 12:43 biology]major wrote:
Guaranteed the US will still dominate the energy race. This is a symbolic failure, really. We aren't "united" in the fight against climate change. It was a chance for nearly the whole planet to come together to solve a problem, but without the US it is really missing a key player. I understand the sentiment behind the agreement, but it's really NOT a big deal.
Mate, the US starts into the energy race with shoelaces tied together, from 200 miles behind the rest of the pack. You will NOT dominate the energy race (you're already years behind actual leaders) for a simple reason, and it's a reason that you will not get around with "but muricah tho!".
China, germany, france and other big players decided to actively and politically support the transition to renewables. They have governmental support and funding. The US defunded science departments, made it clear that coal is the way to go "because he loves miners", and is lead by a government mainly made from climate change deniers, people who think the world is 6000 years old, and old fucks who don't care because they die before 2035 anyway.
|
|
|
On June 02 2017 19:11 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 18:48 Simberto wrote:On June 02 2017 16:26 Artisreal wrote:On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:
Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free. From the heritage foundation webpage
Heritage analysts projected that this agreement would have raised energy prices, killed jobs and cost the average family of four $20,000 by 2035.
Simple math. $20k, Paris agreement starts, let's say 2018. That's 17 years until 2035. 18 if you include 2035. $20,000/18 years = $1,111/yr Quite literally thousand S of Dollars per year. Your numbers have yet to meet up. You have not taken a second look at the graph I posted yesterday which might help you to understand what bogus the Heritage foundation can spout. It clearly shows that, if we CUT ALL CARBON EMISSION IMMEDIATELY, which is the + Show Spoiler [scenario] + In fact, the entire industrialized world could cut carbon emissions down to zero, and the climate impact would still be less than four-tenths of a degree Celsius in terms of averted warming by the year 2100. I bolded in the HF's statement that in contrast to many others WAS NOT BACKED BY ANY CITATION, the statement is false. If you don't want to look at facts don't preposterously try to use them. Your use of the word is strikingly wrong in my book. Not saying you're the only one but your denial stands out in regard to climate science and you inability or reluctance to review fallacys I pointed out. Demanding to be presented with the evidence layed out on a plate and then thoroughly ignoring it doesn't help your credibility or people taking your views serious. You forgot one important fact. That number is "for a family", not "per american". Thus, if we assume that the standard heritage foundation family is father, mother, son, daughter, that means per 4 people. Which means that the actual number is slightly less than 300$ per person per year. And that is the fucking Heritage foundation number. Any real number is probably at most half of that, maybe less. But it still doesn't matter. To xDaunt, reducing the temperature increase by 0.17°C (REALLY SMALL AMOUNT OMG!!!) is worth exactly 0 dollars per american per year. Because the only thing that matter is RIGHT NOW. The future is irrelevant. People in the future can deal with future problems, that is not our job now. Our job now is to get as much shit as possible. I don't think you can understate how much xDaunt loves to stick it to the liberals, I'm pretty sure that's at least 25% of most of his thought processes.
That's not only xDaunt, but the GOP in general. They are ready to replace the ACA by a cow shit because Obama did it. Same for that Paris thing that even the corporate america actually supports. Seriously, they would blow up a gold mine if a democrat had discovered one by rationalizing in the dumbest possible way how bad the gold mine is. The way blind resentment leads half the countries thought process is genuinely terrifying.
|
Fucking christ. But Obama made us look weak.
|
On June 02 2017 17:54 Acrofales wrote:
Messaging is important, and your message has been that you want coal. That's fine. Enjoy yesterday's dying industry. The rest of us will have awesome geothermal plants and hyperefficient windmills and solar, designed in Germany and China (of all places).
I prefer action to messaging. Germany and China are expanding their coal use, while Texas alone is about one year two years behind all of Germany in terms of wind generation, largely because our wind turbines are about twice as efficient* .
On June 02 2017 12:27 Sermokala wrote:
Denying an developing nation the ability to develop industrially de facto enforces a world order between the rich and the poor nations. Its dumb to dress that up as anything other then pre WW1 colonialism. The united states and Europe are industrialized and economically developed.
Agreed! The problem isn't that Paris allows India and China to increase their CO2 emission rate. Some amount of that is to be expected.
However, the details of Paris encourage India and China to accelerate their emissions beyond what they would in the absence of Paris, because emitting more now gives them extra cap room later.
-----
Meanwhile, I'd like some numbers from y'all pro-Paris commenters. How much money should the world be willing to pay to prevent one degree of warming?
*Measured as (generation per year / nameplate); Wikipedia has stats for Texas and Germany.
|
As much as it takes to stop it.
|
Do folks still not understand that a 1 degree increase across the entire planet is a staggering amount of energy?
|
On June 02 2017 21:34 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 17:54 Acrofales wrote:
Messaging is important, and your message has been that you want coal. That's fine. Enjoy yesterday's dying industry. The rest of us will have awesome geothermal plants and hyperefficient windmills and solar, designed in Germany and China (of all places). I prefer action to messaging. Germany and China are expanding their coal use, while Texas alone is about one year behind all of Germany in terms of wind generation, largely because our wind turbines are about twice as efficient* . Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 12:27 Sermokala wrote:
Denying an developing nation the ability to develop industrially de facto enforces a world order between the rich and the poor nations. Its dumb to dress that up as anything other then pre WW1 colonialism. The united states and Europe are industrialized and economically developed. Agreed! The problem isn't that Paris allows India and China to increase their CO2 emission rate. Some amount of that is to be expected. However, the details of Paris encourage India and China to accelerate their emissions beyond what they would in the absence of Paris, because emitting more now gives them extra cap room later. ----- Meanwhile, I'd like some numbers from y'all pro-Paris commenters. How much money should the world be willing to pay to prevent one degree of warming?
*Measured as (generation per year / nameplate); Wikipedia has stats for Texas and Germany.
that's the same defeatist question that xDaunt keeps asking. No matter what number people say you say it's too much. So why not ask what money the US should be willing to pay to prevent it's water supply's to be poisoned instead? Would you also argue that we have to ingore that if it's too expensive (for you personally)?
and 1 degree is a lot. I don't think there's a number at which I'd stop (or well, "I'd want Germany to stop") if I had someone guarantee me that x amount of money stops that.
|
I'd say around as much money as is caused by the damage of that one degree increase (assuming appropriate mitigation measures are also taken to alleviate the damage, and factoring those into the cost). probably add 10-20% to account for uncertainties and unknown unknowns.
anyone have good figures on that?
not sure what level of present value discounting is appropriate for the long term consequences.
|
On June 02 2017 21:34 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 17:54 Acrofales wrote:
Messaging is important, and your message has been that you want coal. That's fine. Enjoy yesterday's dying industry. The rest of us will have awesome geothermal plants and hyperefficient windmills and solar, designed in Germany and China (of all places). I prefer action to messaging. Germany and China are expanding their coal use, while Texas alone is about one year behind all of Germany in terms of wind generation, largely because our wind turbines are about twice as efficient* . Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 12:27 Sermokala wrote:
Denying an developing nation the ability to develop industrially de facto enforces a world order between the rich and the poor nations. Its dumb to dress that up as anything other then pre WW1 colonialism. The united states and Europe are industrialized and economically developed. Agreed! The problem isn't that Paris allows India and China to increase their CO2 emission rate. Some amount of that is to be expected. However, the details of Paris encourage India and China to accelerate their emissions beyond what they would in the absence of Paris, because emitting more now gives them extra cap room later. ----- Meanwhile, I'd like some numbers from y'all pro-Paris commenters. How much money should the world be willing to pay to prevent one degree of warming? *Measured as (generation per year / nameplate); Wikipedia has stats for Texas and Germany.
Germany 29,075 MW
Texas 20,321 MW
Germany Sq. Miles - 137,983 mi²
Texas Sq. Miles - 268,597 mi²
Germany - 0.21 MW/mi²
Texas - 0.07MW/mi²
Germany - 357 W Per Cap
Texas - 739.75 W Per Cap
More like Germany is 3x ahead Texas in terms of overall development, and likely further ahead of the rest of the US, but i dont have the time to look up every state. And if what you said about efficiency is true that along with Texas' largely rural population is probably the reason for the higher per Capita numbers, but again I don't have the time to verify that claim.
|
On June 02 2017 21:54 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 21:34 Buckyman wrote:On June 02 2017 17:54 Acrofales wrote:
Messaging is important, and your message has been that you want coal. That's fine. Enjoy yesterday's dying industry. The rest of us will have awesome geothermal plants and hyperefficient windmills and solar, designed in Germany and China (of all places). I prefer action to messaging. Germany and China are expanding their coal use, while Texas alone is about one year behind all of Germany in terms of wind generation, largely because our wind turbines are about twice as efficient* . On June 02 2017 12:27 Sermokala wrote:
Denying an developing nation the ability to develop industrially de facto enforces a world order between the rich and the poor nations. Its dumb to dress that up as anything other then pre WW1 colonialism. The united states and Europe are industrialized and economically developed. Agreed! The problem isn't that Paris allows India and China to increase their CO2 emission rate. Some amount of that is to be expected. However, the details of Paris encourage India and China to accelerate their emissions beyond what they would in the absence of Paris, because emitting more now gives them extra cap room later. ----- Meanwhile, I'd like some numbers from y'all pro-Paris commenters. How much money should the world be willing to pay to prevent one degree of warming? *Measured as (generation per year / nameplate); Wikipedia has stats for Texas and Germany. Germany 29,075 MW Texas 20,321 MW Germany Sq. Miles - 137,983 mi² Texas Sq. Miles - 268,597 mi² Germany - 0.21 MW/mi² Texas - 0.07MW/mi² Germany - 357 W Per Cap Texas - 739.75 W Per Cap More like Germany is 3x ahead Texas in terms of overall development, and likely further ahead of the rest of the US, but i dont have the time to look up every state. And if what you said about efficiency is true that along with Texas' largely rural population is probably the reason for the higher per Capita numbers, but again I don't have the time to verify that claim.
am I misunderstanding his links?
The wikipedia he linked states that Germany is at 49.9k MW as of 2016, while Texas is at 20.3k as of 2016?
The jump from roughly 20k to 50k took Germany 10 years if Wikipedia can be trusted on that but it looks that way:
https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm
|
I really wonder how buckyman had worked out that Texan wind turbines are about twice as efficient as Germany's. It could very well be true, if Texas has stronger wind speeds, or there is some sort of legislation on height, but that's really skirting the definition of efficiency of a wind turbine.
|
Chances Trump blocks Comey from testifying (which apparently he can do)? Not even he can be stupid enough do that right? If Comey has dirt the only play is to let him talk and call him a liar. Preventing him from talking at all only feeds the cover up story/crime.
|
United States42668 Posts
I can't see why the efficiency of a wind turbine would even matter. Efficiency is important when the input is a limited resource and you need to maximize the output per input. Obviously if the cost is the same you'd want a more efficient wind turbine. But if a more efficient wind turbine cost more per kw/hr generated then you'd just get two of the less efficient ones surely.
You don't need to get as much energy as possible before all the wind is used up.
|
On June 02 2017 22:12 On_Slaught wrote:
Chances Trump blocks Comey from testifying (which apparently he can do)? Not even he can be stupid enough do that right? If Comey has dirt the only play is to let him talk and call him a liar. Preventing him from talking at all only feeds the cover up story/crime.
It would fall under the same stupid tactic of firing him to stop the investigation.
|
United States42668 Posts
Also kw/hr generated per square mile is a worse comparison than kw/hr generated per capita. Texas is doing awesomely.
|
On June 02 2017 22:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I really wonder how buckyman had worked out that Texan wind turbines are about twice as efficient as Germany's. It could very well be true, if Texas has stronger wind speeds, or there is some sort of legislation on height, but that's really skirting the definition of efficiency of a wind turbine.
The best part is, after looking at the chart I linked above: https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm
that shows the capacity quite nicely for everything in Germany I went ahead and checked the other things for Texas resulting in this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n39FRkJ.png)
for Texas-solar compared to the ~40k in Germany. Good job picking this example Bucky. Really good job
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
