|
On January 24 2013 05:57 TerribleNoobling wrote:
While I am in favour of any and all tax breaks (I don't blame anyone for escaping the yoke of repession!) this does distort the market and will lead to less efficient outcomes - better to eliminate across the board taxes on energy firms to better allow them to operate . There's really no need to incentivize the development of energy; consumer demand already does that. Anytime you have the government picking winners and losers you are going to have a tremendous risk of them backing the wrong one for political reasons. The marketplace, however, is tremendously meritocratic. If a specific form of energy is the most economic then the investment dollars will flow where the profits are the greatest. What you need is market competition not government intervention in the market place.
While I don't want to drag this too far into economics, it seems you are making some assumptions that I don't think have grounding. For example, why should the market be the most efficient way of achieving every outcome? Surely the market achieves the outcomes it wishes to achieve as efficiently as possible, but those may not be the same ones we want to achieve? The market doesn't care about the long term when it is centuries long, for example, so it won't be an efficient way to make plans for that time-scale. The market also has no problem with creating an unsustainable system if (while it lasts) it benefits every part of the market with the power to stop it, as is shown by bubbles throughout history. The market is the best way to achieve some things, but I don't see how we can just assume it has the same goals in mind as we do.
|
On December 13 2011 07:13 dabbeljuh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 07:12 Traeon wrote:
Man-made climate change is only controversial in the US, everywhere else it is accepted as reality. that is not completely true, if you look at any (!) given article at spiegel.de or zeit.de (or even welt.de or focus.de) you will see that the world or at least the internet is full of denialists, also in germany 
Internet is a very loud place where minorieties come together to act act strong. 
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 24 2013 06:02 Quincel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 05:57 Veldril wrote:
For the technology that is possible, many grants have already been poured into those areas. But if we would only wait for the research result to come out, then we would run out of time first because the researches are not easily done and very time consuming. Even very basic research can take more than a year. So we have to slow down the escalation of the problem, while at the same time finding a way to amend it. But if those actions cost money that could otherwise be spent on research isn't it not as simple as that?
The problem isn't entirely down to there not being enough money for research. Most currently available green energy sources just don't produce enough energy. Nuclear fission power is probably the best way to transition away from fossil fuels at the moment but there is a lot of opposition to it some of which is legitimate some less so. Probably the best solution would be fusion but it is a long way off being usable. Minimising energy use is necessary until a viable alternative is ready to completely replace fossil fuels.
|
TL is imho most surely "..not the right place.." to discuss Climate Change. (+other intellectual topics as well)
A "right place" would not silence/ban/delete viewpoints that are contrary to the "paradigm" or in any way favor one of the sides.
edit: oh btw..please dont ban me.
User was warned for this post
User was temp banned for this post.
|
It does seem that this particular forum suffers from a tremendous case of 'group think'. I for one could care less if you ban me. At least when some power mad authority figure cracks down on you on the internet it's a lot less inconvenient than when they do the same in real life.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On January 24 2013 06:48 imallinson wrote:
The problem isn't entirely down to there not being enough money for research. Most currently available green energy sources just don't produce enough energy. Nuclear fission power is probably the best way to transition away from fossil fuels at the moment but there is a lot of opposition to it some of which is legitimate some less so. Probably the best solution would be fusion but it is a long way off being usable. Minimising energy use is necessary until a viable alternative is ready to completely replace fossil fuels.
I may be missing something, but isn't this down to money for research? Nuclear fusion will be ready sooner if we spend lots of money on researching the bits that don't work, right? And surely solar power and so on aren't inherently inefficient, we just haven't worked out how to improve their production levels yet? Research made coal and gas power production much more efficient over time, isn't that the same problem (and therefore solution) here?
|
On January 24 2013 06:48 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 06:02 Quincel wrote:On January 24 2013 05:57 Veldril wrote:
For the technology that is possible, many grants have already been poured into those areas. But if we would only wait for the research result to come out, then we would run out of time first because the researches are not easily done and very time consuming. Even very basic research can take more than a year. So we have to slow down the escalation of the problem, while at the same time finding a way to amend it. But if those actions cost money that could otherwise be spent on research isn't it not as simple as that? The problem isn't entirely down to there not being enough money for research. Most currently available green energy sources just don't produce enough energy. Nuclear fission power is probably the best way to transition away from fossil fuels at the moment but there is a lot of opposition to it some of which is legitimate some less so. Probably the best solution would be fusion but it is a long way off being usable. Minimising energy use is necessary until a viable alternative is ready to completely replace fossil fuels.
It's a mix of maximum energy production and reliability of production. Every watt of energy we produce is consumed immediately (or shortly after). There is only a storage capacity large enough to prevent unpredictable surges in demand/supply from creating an outage. There are plenty of places that have the potential to provide an enormous amount of energy from wind, solar, and/or geothermal generators, but we don't have the facilities (and technology to some degree) to store the energy for when it's needed, or to move it where it's needed (efficiently). The course being proposed is to develop and install these high-output renewable sources now so that we can quickly replace the immediate consumption model of electricity to a more "store now, spend later" approach when battery and distribution technology is improved. Those technologies are improving rapidly as well, so it's not a HUGE gamble.
On January 24 2013 07:11 Quincel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 06:48 imallinson wrote:
The problem isn't entirely down to there not being enough money for research. Most currently available green energy sources just don't produce enough energy. Nuclear fission power is probably the best way to transition away from fossil fuels at the moment but there is a lot of opposition to it some of which is legitimate some less so. Probably the best solution would be fusion but it is a long way off being usable. Minimising energy use is necessary until a viable alternative is ready to completely replace fossil fuels. I may be missing something, but isn't this down to money for research? Nuclear fusion will be ready sooner if we spend lots of money on researching the bits that don't work, right? And surely solar power and so on aren't inherently inefficient, we just haven't worked out how to improve their production levels yet? Research made coal and gas power production much more efficient over time, isn't that the same problem (and therefore solution) here?
I want to point out the viability of oil and coal as compared to "natural" sources. With oil and coal, the issue has always been the price of the product you're using to create the energy. The investment in the equipment to increase capacity has always been rather cheap compared to the cost of burning oil, coal, and natural gas. As demand as grown, again, the problem hasn't been with output and capacity. If people need more energy now, you just turn some dials and throw on a little more coal (roughly) until the demand falls. This sequence happens every day. If the demand gets too high and you find the plant can't burn the fuel hot enough, you build another. In return, the market response to this is to make burning the fuel more efficient so that you need less of it (thus costs are reduced).
|
On January 24 2013 06:53 vvLOSTvv wrote:
TL is imho most surely "..not the right place.." to discuss Climate Change. (+other intellectual topics as well)
A "right place" would not silence/ban/delete viewpoints that are contrary to the "paradigm" or in any way favor one of the sides.
edit: oh btw..please dont ban me.
User was warned for this post
It is not about what was said, it was the manner in which it was said.
Anyone can question the establishment, anyone can chose not to belive a source because they don't belive the people behind the data. That is why the burden of proof in falsification lies on you, not the person that brought fourth the data in the first place. We have good sources, from a lot of different people, claiming more or less the same thing regarding climate chang. There is a reason why science tend to gravitate towards a common conclusion in the end, and that is because the scientific method works. We know it works because we use the knowledge gained from it every day.
So yes, you are free to disagree, but if you want people to take you seriously, you need to go out and prove it rigorously. It doesn't matter if the topic is climate change or natural selection or something completely trivial. Without data, your conlusion is just one of millions of opinions.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 24 2013 07:11 Quincel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 06:48 imallinson wrote:
The problem isn't entirely down to there not being enough money for research. Most currently available green energy sources just don't produce enough energy. Nuclear fission power is probably the best way to transition away from fossil fuels at the moment but there is a lot of opposition to it some of which is legitimate some less so. Probably the best solution would be fusion but it is a long way off being usable. Minimising energy use is necessary until a viable alternative is ready to completely replace fossil fuels. I may be missing something, but isn't this down to money for research? Nuclear fusion will be ready sooner if we spend lots of money on researching the bits that don't work, right? And surely solar power and so on aren't inherently inefficient, we just haven't worked out how to improve their production levels yet? Research made coal and gas power production much more efficient over time, isn't that the same problem (and therefore solution) here?
The thing is no matter how much money you throw into the research it still takes time. Construction was started on ITER, the experimental fusion reactor, in 2007 and they aren't expecting to start testing until 2020. Its going to be even longer until a commercially viable reactor is designed and more time still for construction. A complete transition to fusion power will probably be only viable by 2050 at the earliest.
|
On January 24 2013 07:29 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 07:11 Quincel wrote:On January 24 2013 06:48 imallinson wrote:
The problem isn't entirely down to there not being enough money for research. Most currently available green energy sources just don't produce enough energy. Nuclear fission power is probably the best way to transition away from fossil fuels at the moment but there is a lot of opposition to it some of which is legitimate some less so. Probably the best solution would be fusion but it is a long way off being usable. Minimising energy use is necessary until a viable alternative is ready to completely replace fossil fuels. I may be missing something, but isn't this down to money for research? Nuclear fusion will be ready sooner if we spend lots of money on researching the bits that don't work, right? And surely solar power and so on aren't inherently inefficient, we just haven't worked out how to improve their production levels yet? Research made coal and gas power production much more efficient over time, isn't that the same problem (and therefore solution) here? The thing is no matter how much money you throw into the research it still takes time. Construction was started on ITER, the experimental fusion reactor, in 2007 and they aren't expecting to start testing until 2020. Its going to be even longer until a commercially viable reactor is designed and more time still for construction. A complete transition to fusion power will probably be only viable by 2050 at the earliest.
I bet if you "threw" $1 trillion (USD) at it, it would be done by the end of 2015. Fully operational, and running deuterium-tritium operations.
|
On January 24 2013 07:34 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 07:29 imallinson wrote:On January 24 2013 07:11 Quincel wrote:On January 24 2013 06:48 imallinson wrote:
The problem isn't entirely down to there not being enough money for research. Most currently available green energy sources just don't produce enough energy. Nuclear fission power is probably the best way to transition away from fossil fuels at the moment but there is a lot of opposition to it some of which is legitimate some less so. Probably the best solution would be fusion but it is a long way off being usable. Minimising energy use is necessary until a viable alternative is ready to completely replace fossil fuels. I may be missing something, but isn't this down to money for research? Nuclear fusion will be ready sooner if we spend lots of money on researching the bits that don't work, right? And surely solar power and so on aren't inherently inefficient, we just haven't worked out how to improve their production levels yet? Research made coal and gas power production much more efficient over time, isn't that the same problem (and therefore solution) here? The thing is no matter how much money you throw into the research it still takes time. Construction was started on ITER, the experimental fusion reactor, in 2007 and they aren't expecting to start testing until 2020. Its going to be even longer until a commercially viable reactor is designed and more time still for construction. A complete transition to fusion power will probably be only viable by 2050 at the earliest. I bet if you "threw" $1 trillion (USD) at it, it would be done by the end of 2015. Fully operational, and running deuterium-tritium operations.
Well, not really. We are still capped by the limit of human intelligence to understand things to make something actually happen. And we still don't really understand how to make a reliable cold fusion reactor.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 24 2013 07:45 Veldril wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 07:34 aksfjh wrote:On January 24 2013 07:29 imallinson wrote:On January 24 2013 07:11 Quincel wrote:On January 24 2013 06:48 imallinson wrote:
The problem isn't entirely down to there not being enough money for research. Most currently available green energy sources just don't produce enough energy. Nuclear fission power is probably the best way to transition away from fossil fuels at the moment but there is a lot of opposition to it some of which is legitimate some less so. Probably the best solution would be fusion but it is a long way off being usable. Minimising energy use is necessary until a viable alternative is ready to completely replace fossil fuels. I may be missing something, but isn't this down to money for research? Nuclear fusion will be ready sooner if we spend lots of money on researching the bits that don't work, right? And surely solar power and so on aren't inherently inefficient, we just haven't worked out how to improve their production levels yet? Research made coal and gas power production much more efficient over time, isn't that the same problem (and therefore solution) here? The thing is no matter how much money you throw into the research it still takes time. Construction was started on ITER, the experimental fusion reactor, in 2007 and they aren't expecting to start testing until 2020. Its going to be even longer until a commercially viable reactor is designed and more time still for construction. A complete transition to fusion power will probably be only viable by 2050 at the earliest. I bet if you "threw" $1 trillion (USD) at it, it would be done by the end of 2015. Fully operational, and running deuterium-tritium operations. Well, not really. We are still capped by the limit of human intelligence to understand things to make something actually happen. And we still don't really understand how to make a reliable cold fusion reactor.
We still don't know if cold fusion is even possible never mind reliable.
|
On January 24 2013 07:45 Veldril wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 07:34 aksfjh wrote:On January 24 2013 07:29 imallinson wrote:On January 24 2013 07:11 Quincel wrote:On January 24 2013 06:48 imallinson wrote:
The problem isn't entirely down to there not being enough money for research. Most currently available green energy sources just don't produce enough energy. Nuclear fission power is probably the best way to transition away from fossil fuels at the moment but there is a lot of opposition to it some of which is legitimate some less so. Probably the best solution would be fusion but it is a long way off being usable. Minimising energy use is necessary until a viable alternative is ready to completely replace fossil fuels. I may be missing something, but isn't this down to money for research? Nuclear fusion will be ready sooner if we spend lots of money on researching the bits that don't work, right? And surely solar power and so on aren't inherently inefficient, we just haven't worked out how to improve their production levels yet? Research made coal and gas power production much more efficient over time, isn't that the same problem (and therefore solution) here? The thing is no matter how much money you throw into the research it still takes time. Construction was started on ITER, the experimental fusion reactor, in 2007 and they aren't expecting to start testing until 2020. Its going to be even longer until a commercially viable reactor is designed and more time still for construction. A complete transition to fusion power will probably be only viable by 2050 at the earliest. I bet if you "threw" $1 trillion (USD) at it, it would be done by the end of 2015. Fully operational, and running deuterium-tritium operations. Well, not really. We are still capped by the limit of human intelligence to understand things to make something actually happen. And we still don't really understand how to make a reliable cold fusion reactor.
Isn't ITER hot fusion? With plasma?
|
BTW - a note to everyone. This "TerribleNoobling" person is the worst part of the climate change discussion. He is not even a troll. He is someone who is paid to go to forums like this and argue against doing something about climate change (i.e. there is nothing you can do to change his opinion).
People who frequent climate change news on websites such as huffingtonpost.com will be familiar with these "astroturfers".
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 24 2013 08:02 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 07:45 Veldril wrote:On January 24 2013 07:34 aksfjh wrote:On January 24 2013 07:29 imallinson wrote:On January 24 2013 07:11 Quincel wrote:On January 24 2013 06:48 imallinson wrote:
The problem isn't entirely down to there not being enough money for research. Most currently available green energy sources just don't produce enough energy. Nuclear fission power is probably the best way to transition away from fossil fuels at the moment but there is a lot of opposition to it some of which is legitimate some less so. Probably the best solution would be fusion but it is a long way off being usable. Minimising energy use is necessary until a viable alternative is ready to completely replace fossil fuels. I may be missing something, but isn't this down to money for research? Nuclear fusion will be ready sooner if we spend lots of money on researching the bits that don't work, right? And surely solar power and so on aren't inherently inefficient, we just haven't worked out how to improve their production levels yet? Research made coal and gas power production much more efficient over time, isn't that the same problem (and therefore solution) here? The thing is no matter how much money you throw into the research it still takes time. Construction was started on ITER, the experimental fusion reactor, in 2007 and they aren't expecting to start testing until 2020. Its going to be even longer until a commercially viable reactor is designed and more time still for construction. A complete transition to fusion power will probably be only viable by 2050 at the earliest. I bet if you "threw" $1 trillion (USD) at it, it would be done by the end of 2015. Fully operational, and running deuterium-tritium operations. Well, not really. We are still capped by the limit of human intelligence to understand things to make something actually happen. And we still don't really understand how to make a reliable cold fusion reactor. Isn't ITER hot fusion? With plasma?
Yes ITER is hot plasma fusion. No idea where the cold fusion thing came from.
|
On January 24 2013 08:03 nebffa wrote:
BTW - a note to everyone. This "TerribleNoobling" person is the worst part of the climate change discussion. He is not even a troll. He is someone who is paid to go to forums like this and argue against doing something about climate change (i.e. there is nothing you can do to change his opinion).
People who frequent climate change news on websites such as huffingtonpost.com will be familiar with these "astroturfers".
Regardless if this would be true (I'm curious to the sources of that though), it's scary how many naysayers exist and how similar (read ignore any refute and throw out 10 new accusations etc) their line of arguing is.
edit: true ive never googled this term, now this seem interesting, ty I guess I should read some
|
I personally believe that global warming is happening, and that a significant part of it is caused by human activity. However I still don't think we should spent much in the way or resources trying to reverse it. There are two basic reasons why I believe this:
1. It will be many, many years until the effects of climate change start to cause serious harm. The world will change a lot in that time. Many people believe we are approaching a "technological singularity" which will arrive before 2100. Practically everyone agrees that technology is advancing at a very rapid pace. I believe that human ingenuity will find much cheaper solutions to climate change, or, alternatively that it will be cheaper to adapt to the changes than reverse them.
2. The world has much more pressing problems than climate change. For example malaria, HIV, etc that are killing hundreds of thousands of people. This is basically Bjorn Lomborg's argument.
I would rather see faster economic growth than any big investments in trying to reverse global warming (which is probably impossible anyway).
|
On January 24 2013 10:52 ziggurat wrote:
Many people believe we are approaching a "technological singularity" which will arrive before 2100.
Nah, I think we're about to hit a catastrophe point in technology space and things will slow down immensely. There's going to be a combinatorial explosion in the problem space. just my hunch
edit: further research will be more about engineering, dynamical systems, efficiency, robustness, and so on. It's not going to be like the mid 19th-late 20th centuries forever, and this singularity nonsense is just a messianic cult as far as I'm concerned.
edit: we will probably spend the entire 21st century trying to make economics into a real science
edit: when you talk about economic growth that is exactly the wrong problem. We need to find an economic system that works when it isn't growing, because limitless growth is impossible.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
1. You could say that about anything. Anything we do will probably be cheaper and easier in the future. However this relies on the fact that we continue to tackle problems now. As for whether it will be cheaper to deal with the problem or the consequences I think there have been a few studies which showed dealing with the problem will be the far cheaper alternative.
2. Why can't we deal with those problems and climate change at the same time? HIV, malaria and climate change all have a lot of research going into them currently. Also climate change can kill or adversely affect people's lives.
|
On January 24 2013 10:58 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: we will probably spend the entire 21st century trying to make economics into a real science
oh... that sounds like a painfully boring century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
