|
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. |
Canada11516 Posts
On June 02 2017 21:46 Plansix wrote:
Do folks still not understand that a 1 degree increase across the entire planet is a staggering amount of energy?
There's an obvious question, and I mean this sincerely. A staggering amount of energy is the cause to the one degree increase, which is the effect. But I'm pretty sure the naysayers are wanting to know- what effect does that one degree itself (or 0.17 degree) have really? Not how do we get there but what effect is there once we do- that we know for sure? Does one degree melt all the ice caps? Does it create a spiralling increase in temperature? Does it cause the sea levels to rise x metres?
|
It's not surprising that Trump wants coal back, considering that, if if were up to him, the Asbestos industry would've never died. The worrisome part is that a large share of the population agrees with him. Unfortunately past administrations chickened out to the mob, and as a result, lives were lost on 9/11. As the man himself said:
I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented. Millions of truckloads of this incredible fire-proofing material were taken to special "dump sites" and asbestos was replaced by materials that were supposedly safe but couldn't hold a candle to asbestos in limiting the ravages of fire. - Art of the Comeback.
But hey, at least the mob was(kinda, sorta) american. Now the enemy is foreign. Thankfully now the US has a President willing to defend lovely lovely green coal from the Chinese conspirators.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On June 02 2017 22:19 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 21:46 Plansix wrote:
Do folks still not understand that a 1 degree increase across the entire planet is a staggering amount of energy? There's an obvious question, and I mean this sincerely. A staggering amount of energy is the cause to the one degree increase, which is the effect. But I'm pretty sure the naysayers are wanting to know- what effect does that one degree itself (or 0.17 degree) have really? Not how do we get there but what effect is there once we do- that we know for sure? Does one degree melt all the ice caps? Does it create a spiralling increase in temperature? Does it cause the sea levels to rise x metres?
+ Show Spoiler [XKCD Visualization] +
Source
|
On June 02 2017 22:09 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 21:54 Trainrunnef wrote: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
In my rush to prove him wrong I looked at the Germany 2011 numbers since they were highlighted in the large chart at the bottom. Here are the updated numbers.
Germany 49,972 MW
Texas 20,321 MW
Germany Sq. Miles - 137,983 mi²
Texas Sq. Miles - 268,597 mi²
Germany - 0.36 MW/mi²
Texas - 0.07MW/mi²
Germany - 613.83 W Per Cap
Texas - 739.75 W Per Cap
|
On June 02 2017 22:19 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 21:46 Plansix wrote:
Do folks still not understand that a 1 degree increase across the entire planet is a staggering amount of energy? There's an obvious question, and I mean this sincerely. A staggering amount of energy is the cause to the one degree increase, which is the effect. But I'm pretty sure the naysayers are wanting to know- what effect does that one degree itself (or 0.17 degree) have really? Not how do we get there but what effect is there once we do- that we know for sure? Does one degree melt all the ice caps? Does it create a spiralling increase in temperature? Does it cause the sea levels to rise x metres?
I am not science expert by any stretch. But reading is that the amount that will be added will make weather systems more sever, droughts long, harsher winters and more costal flooding. It might not put New York City under water, but it could bankruptcy our farming industry.
And once the energy is in the system, we can’t remove it. We have to wait for the planet to “cool down”.
|
On June 02 2017 22:28 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 22:09 Toadesstern wrote:On June 02 2017 21:54 Trainrunnef wrote: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 In my rush to prove him wrong I looked at the Germany 2011 numbers since they were highlighted in the large chart at the bottom. Here are the updated numbers. Germany 49,972 MW Texas 20,321 MW Germany Sq. Miles - 137,983 mi² Texas Sq. Miles - 268,597 mi² Germany - 0.36 MW/mi² Texas - 0.07MW/mi² Germany - 613.83 W Per Cap Texas - 739.75 W Per Cap
while also having to acknowledge, like I said, that he cherry picked massively by choosing a) Texas and b) Wind in Texas as they seem to be pretty much all-in on Wind while Germany is spreading out a bit more with it's solar, hydro etc energy.
And of course Texas is able to get the same increase in Windpower as Germany was able to achieve over 10 years in just 1 year according to him. But hey, if texas really pulls that off I'm not going to complain. That'd be pretty amazing.
|
On June 02 2017 22:09 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 21:54 Trainrunnef wrote:
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'm comparing the generation numbers, rather than capacity, because those are closest of the available stats to the important 'fossil fuel not burned' measure. The numbers are 57.6 GWh in Texas in 2016 and...
Oops, I missed that there were no 2016 numbers for Germany. Germany produced 57.4 GWh of wind power in 2014 and 79.2 GWh in 2015, putting them two years ahead of Texas. My bad.
---
Regarding higher turbine efficiency: It appears to be a product of higher uptime. I suspect part of the reason is this:
Germany - 0.36 MW/mi²
Texas - 0.07MW/mi²
Germany's higher wind saturation, and Texas' large area, mean that Germany's putting their new land-based wind farms on sites that wouldn't even be considered marginal in Texas. So Texas' newest, most modern wind farms are much better sited than Germany's.
---
Regarding the relative lack of solar in Texas: It's just getting out-competed by wind right now. Texas has some prime low-latitude desert, which we can expect to see developed into solar as the technology matures.
|
So...Texas has massively more potential for wind and solar energy due to its size difference and geographical properties and population difference. Great. I don't really see how this translate into more efficient wind turbines. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
|
Because Texas has most of the world's largest solar farms, and winds farms. While also having the largest landowners who want them on their ranches as drought has made their livelihood extinct. Literally.
|
Mike Pence was asleep during the 1990s when this was an issue for the “left”.
|
How is the fight about who has more PV capacity installed again related to the topic of the US exit of the Paris agreement?
I diddn't catch the turn.
|
United States43989 Posts
Pence is either legitimately confused as to why the future of the planet Earth concerns leftists or is pretending to be. Either he's a complete idiot or he thinks his audience is composed entirely of complete idiots.
Pence, people on the left live on Earth. That's the connection between the two.
|
On June 02 2017 22:47 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 22:09 Toadesstern wrote:On June 02 2017 21:54 Trainrunnef wrote:
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'm comparing the generation numbers, rather than capacity, because those are closest of the available stats to the important 'fossil fuel not burned' measure. The numbers are 57.6 GWh in Texas in 2016 and... Oops, I missed that there were no 2016 numbers for Germany. Germany produced 57.4 GWh of wind power in 2014 and 79.2 GWh in 2015, putting them two years ahead of Texas. My bad. --- Regarding higher turbine efficiency: It appears to be a product of higher uptime. I suspect part of the reason is this: Germany's higher wind saturation, and Texas' large area, mean that Germany's putting their new land-based wind farms on sites that wouldn't even be considered marginal in Texas. So Texas' newest, most modern wind farms are much better sited than Germany's. --- Regarding the relative lack of solar in Texas: It's just getting out-competed by wind right now. Texas has some prime low-latitude desert, which we can expect to see developed into solar as the technology matures.
but that's the point. I'm not saying the decision from Texas to all-in on Wind is stupid. I'm saying comparing the two as if they were equals is stupid. Wind is really good for such rural areas and Germany is a lot more densly populated than Texas, so Wind doesn't make as much sense over here as in Texas.
Hell I'm originally from a fairly rural area, a 10k population village to be more specific in Germany that supposedly gets more energy than it uses in a year from 3 big wind turbines alone. Don't think that's really viable for big cities though.
The problem for me is you deciding to ignore everything else in the equation after already comming to the conclusion that Wind makes more sense for a state like Texas than for a country like Germany.
That's like comparing Norway with something else but not talking about their huge amounts of energy they're getting from hydroelectricity because you want to talk about Wind alone.
|
Germany and other countries invested in wind power generation and solar power generation before they were cost-efficient compared to traditionally used power generation methods.
People might think it would have been wiser to wait for more cost-efficient wind power plants, but in all likelihood these more cost-efficient power plants would still not be around if nobody would have invested in these sectors, thereby sparking the development.
There is no question that a country as vast as the US has way more potential when it comes to renewable energy than a densely populated, small country like Germany.
|
|
|
|
|
Canada13407 Posts
Yeah that doesn't look good. The optics for this whole thing just keep getting worse.
|
On June 02 2017 23:09 KwarK wrote:
Pence is either legitimately confused as to why the future of the planet Earth concerns leftists or is pretending to be. Either he's a complete idiot or he thinks his audience is composed entirely of complete idiots.
Pence, people on the left live on Earth. That's the connection between the two.
Well so far it looks like his audience (Trump voters) is indeed composed largely out of complete idiots so... easy answer?
|
On June 02 2017 23:32 a_flayer wrote:Meanwhile, in Berlin, at the US embassy: + Show Spoiler +
Lol, not unexpected though. 
|
To be fair, if a pointless reporter kept harassing me to try to pull out a bombshell, I'd also not talk to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PLkBvwQ.jpg)
