|
On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! It would cost many many trillions of dollars (and many many decades) to implement a nationwide rail system meant to be used as public transportation like they have in the UK. It is being invested into, but it takes a GIGANTIC amount of funding and time. Eventually, it will be viable in some places in the US like in the UK (in fact, it already is in places like NYC and SF). It will take a VERY long time though. It will never be viable in most of the midwest. It also does nothing to curb the expense (money and carbon emissions) of traveling around the country (particularly by plane).
Outside of simply having cleaner fuel, any efforts to fundamentally alter the infrastructure of a large industrialized nation is largely a pipe dream. It will simply take too long, by the time it begins to have any effect it will be far too late to matter anyway.
The money is probably better invested into research on alternative energy sources. Not that it would be, but still.
|
On September 28 2013 18:15 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! It would cost many many trillions of dollars (and many many decades) to implement a nationwide rail system meant to be used as public transportation like they have in the UK. It is being invested into, but it takes a GIGANTIC amount of funding and time. Eventually, it will be viable in some places in the US like in the UK (in fact, it already is in places like NYC and SF). It will take a VERY long time though. It will never be viable in most of the midwest. It also does nothing to curb the expense (money and carbon emissions) of traveling around the country (particularly by plane). Outside of simply having cleaner fuel, any efforts to fundamentally alter the infrastructure of a large industrialized nation is largely a pipe dream. It will simply take too long, by the time it begins to have any effect it will be far too late to matter anyway. The money is probably better invested into research on alternative energy sources. Not that it would be, but still.
Exactly. I would love it if we invested into more alternative energy sources. I am thrilled that Bill Gates is using some of his stash to invest into it. I wish so much that it could get more funding, private or otherwise.
|
On September 28 2013 18:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:15 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! It would cost many many trillions of dollars (and many many decades) to implement a nationwide rail system meant to be used as public transportation like they have in the UK. It is being invested into, but it takes a GIGANTIC amount of funding and time. Eventually, it will be viable in some places in the US like in the UK (in fact, it already is in places like NYC and SF). It will take a VERY long time though. It will never be viable in most of the midwest. It also does nothing to curb the expense (money and carbon emissions) of traveling around the country (particularly by plane). Outside of simply having cleaner fuel, any efforts to fundamentally alter the infrastructure of a large industrialized nation is largely a pipe dream. It will simply take too long, by the time it begins to have any effect it will be far too late to matter anyway. The money is probably better invested into research on alternative energy sources. Not that it would be, but still. Exactly. I would love it if we invested into more alternative energy sources. I am thrilled that Bill Gates is using some of his stash to invest into it. I wish so much that it could get more funding, private or otherwise.
This may sound melodramatic, but the issue of clean energy and energy consumption in general are basically about the future of our species and our civilisation. There is literally not a single more important issue facing the human race, not even region locking WCS.
|
On September 28 2013 17:33 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source? Correct, this is about the long haul. No one alive today will likely be alive to see the true fallout of what is happening, one of the main reasons it's and easy and convenient problem to ignore. Just observe the bickering about chinese and american pollution, as if it mattered. Or the people here indignantly protesting having to make any personal sacrifices, as if there are and should not be any consequences for how we live. It's entirely possible that the problem is irreversible at this point and that our species is too fragmented to get our collective asses off the couch, but tbh there really isn't anything more important for us to do anyway so we might as well give this a shot. If it's too late we're going to have to start working on a really good explanation for the coming generations.
Actually, here's the saddest bit: there is already plenty of very doable Geo-Engineering solutions that would work very quickly to correct most of the issues. (We're talking less than a decade) And this isn't science fiction. Which brings up the question: why don't you hear about them?
Easy, as any Geo-Engineering solution doesn't require massive amounts of money, government intervention in markets or room for kickbacks for anyone involved. Though a few do include satellites, so I guess there's some room for graft.
Of course, the flip side with that approach is if you "miss" and over-do it, hey, only a couple hundred Million people will starve if we suddenly lose 2 months of growing season per year! (A warmer planet is easier to grow on & none of the major cereal grain farming regions would be effected by a 20 foot sea level rise, so the North Hemisphere getting colder is actually a much more serious problem than 1C increase) Yeah, I'm sure that one would go down well in the history books.
|
On September 28 2013 18:25 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 17:33 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source? Correct, this is about the long haul. No one alive today will likely be alive to see the true fallout of what is happening, one of the main reasons it's and easy and convenient problem to ignore. Just observe the bickering about chinese and american pollution, as if it mattered. Or the people here indignantly protesting having to make any personal sacrifices, as if there are and should not be any consequences for how we live. It's entirely possible that the problem is irreversible at this point and that our species is too fragmented to get our collective asses off the couch, but tbh there really isn't anything more important for us to do anyway so we might as well give this a shot. If it's too late we're going to have to start working on a really good explanation for the coming generations. Actually, here's the saddest bit: there is already plenty of very doable Geo-Engineering solutions that would work very quickly to correct most of the issues. (We're talking less than a decade) And this isn't science fiction. Which brings up the question: why don't you hear about them? Easy, as any Geo-Engineering solution doesn't require massive amounts of money, government intervention in markets or room for kickbacks for anyone involved. Though a few do include satellites, so I guess there's some room for graft. Of course, the flip side with that approach is if you "miss" and over-do it, hey, only a couple hundred Million people will starve if we suddenly lose 2 months of growing season per year! (A warmer planet is easier to grow on & none of the major cereal grain farming regions would be effected by a 20 foot sea level rise, so the North Hemisphere getting colder is actually a much more serious problem than 1C increase) Yeah, I'm sure that one would go down well in the history books.
Would you care to cite some studies on these geo-engineering solutions that can work in less than a decade for cheap?
EDIT: I am genuinely interested because I havent heard of any of these solutions, like you say.
|
On September 28 2013 18:27 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:25 Taf the Ghost wrote:On September 28 2013 17:33 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source? Correct, this is about the long haul. No one alive today will likely be alive to see the true fallout of what is happening, one of the main reasons it's and easy and convenient problem to ignore. Just observe the bickering about chinese and american pollution, as if it mattered. Or the people here indignantly protesting having to make any personal sacrifices, as if there are and should not be any consequences for how we live. It's entirely possible that the problem is irreversible at this point and that our species is too fragmented to get our collective asses off the couch, but tbh there really isn't anything more important for us to do anyway so we might as well give this a shot. If it's too late we're going to have to start working on a really good explanation for the coming generations. Actually, here's the saddest bit: there is already plenty of very doable Geo-Engineering solutions that would work very quickly to correct most of the issues. (We're talking less than a decade) And this isn't science fiction. Which brings up the question: why don't you hear about them? Easy, as any Geo-Engineering solution doesn't require massive amounts of money, government intervention in markets or room for kickbacks for anyone involved. Though a few do include satellites, so I guess there's some room for graft. Of course, the flip side with that approach is if you "miss" and over-do it, hey, only a couple hundred Million people will starve if we suddenly lose 2 months of growing season per year! (A warmer planet is easier to grow on & none of the major cereal grain farming regions would be effected by a 20 foot sea level rise, so the North Hemisphere getting colder is actually a much more serious problem than 1C increase) Yeah, I'm sure that one would go down well in the history books. Would you care to cite some studies on these geo-engineering solutions that can work in less than a decade for cheap? But that's the point. Why does it have to be cheap? Can't you get your head around the fact that everyone -- Americans included -- has to make large and significant sacrifices?
|
On September 27 2013 23:54 Infernal_dream wrote:
Climate change has always happened. Do humans speed it up? Probably. But if climate change never happened naturally the Earth would still be a frozen ball of ice.
the next ice time is in around what 100k years, if we make it hot like we do it now its 200k years and if we make every year more in same speed as now it will ... never come ...
well i dont like ice time so hell yeah where is my hammer
|
On September 28 2013 18:20 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 18:15 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! It would cost many many trillions of dollars (and many many decades) to implement a nationwide rail system meant to be used as public transportation like they have in the UK. It is being invested into, but it takes a GIGANTIC amount of funding and time. Eventually, it will be viable in some places in the US like in the UK (in fact, it already is in places like NYC and SF). It will take a VERY long time though. It will never be viable in most of the midwest. It also does nothing to curb the expense (money and carbon emissions) of traveling around the country (particularly by plane). Outside of simply having cleaner fuel, any efforts to fundamentally alter the infrastructure of a large industrialized nation is largely a pipe dream. It will simply take too long, by the time it begins to have any effect it will be far too late to matter anyway. The money is probably better invested into research on alternative energy sources. Not that it would be, but still. Exactly. I would love it if we invested into more alternative energy sources. I am thrilled that Bill Gates is using some of his stash to invest into it. I wish so much that it could get more funding, private or otherwise. This may sound melodramatic, but the issue of clean energy and energy consumption in general are basically about the future of our species and our civilisation. There is literally not a single more important issue facing the human race, not even region locking WCS.
Eh, it's actually not that hard: it would take thousands of years to actually run out of Uranium, even without reprocessing. Even at an extremely sold rate of growth. Plus, we can leech Uranium out of the ocean for a few millennium. (Though you would need some on-demand abilities, but hopefully industrial scale battery technology exists in 50-70 years)
The issue is that it's Nuclear and Nuclear power only works with stable governments. Thus the problem. So, Fusion is your answer for the Grid systems. (There are spot places for Solar & Geo-thermal; Wind is mostly useless except at killing endangered bird species) However, Fusion is a monster Engineering problem and has been for the past 50 years. There's no easy answers, though a massive amount of options available.
Though Fusion isn't without some risks. If you managed to ignite the atmosphere, at least there'd be no lawyers left to sue anyone. Or anyone else for that matter when the Earth is suddenly covered in a ball of plasma. But if Humanity goes out in a massive ball of burning Atmosphere, eh, that's not a bad way to go. At least it's artistically pleasing at the end.
|
On September 28 2013 18:31 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:27 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 18:25 Taf the Ghost wrote:On September 28 2013 17:33 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source? Correct, this is about the long haul. No one alive today will likely be alive to see the true fallout of what is happening, one of the main reasons it's and easy and convenient problem to ignore. Just observe the bickering about chinese and american pollution, as if it mattered. Or the people here indignantly protesting having to make any personal sacrifices, as if there are and should not be any consequences for how we live. It's entirely possible that the problem is irreversible at this point and that our species is too fragmented to get our collective asses off the couch, but tbh there really isn't anything more important for us to do anyway so we might as well give this a shot. If it's too late we're going to have to start working on a really good explanation for the coming generations. Actually, here's the saddest bit: there is already plenty of very doable Geo-Engineering solutions that would work very quickly to correct most of the issues. (We're talking less than a decade) And this isn't science fiction. Which brings up the question: why don't you hear about them? Easy, as any Geo-Engineering solution doesn't require massive amounts of money, government intervention in markets or room for kickbacks for anyone involved. Though a few do include satellites, so I guess there's some room for graft. Of course, the flip side with that approach is if you "miss" and over-do it, hey, only a couple hundred Million people will starve if we suddenly lose 2 months of growing season per year! (A warmer planet is easier to grow on & none of the major cereal grain farming regions would be effected by a 20 foot sea level rise, so the North Hemisphere getting colder is actually a much more serious problem than 1C increase) Yeah, I'm sure that one would go down well in the history books. Would you care to cite some studies on these geo-engineering solutions that can work in less than a decade for cheap? But that's the point. Why does it have to be cheap? Can't you get your head around the fact that everyone -- Americans included -- has to make large and significant sacrifices?
It has to be cheap because he said it was cheap. I am questioning the validity of his idea that there are in fact cheap and quick geo-engineering solutions that can be implemented. Stop your useless tirade against the US already. I am about ready to just completely ignore you from here on out.
|
On September 28 2013 18:20 Squat wrote:
This may sound melodramatic, but the issue of clean energy and energy consumption in general are basically about the future of our species and our civilisation. There is literally not a single more important issue facing the human race, not even region locking WCS.
woah lets not go that far 
|
On September 28 2013 17:33 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source? Correct, this is about the long haul. No one alive today will likely be alive to see the true fallout of what is happening, one of the main reasons it's an easy and convenient problem to ignore. Just observe the bickering about chinese and american pollution, as if it mattered. Or the people here indignantly protesting having to make any personal sacrifices, as if there are and should not be any consequences for how we live. It's entirely possible that the problem is irreversible at this point and that our species is too fragmented to get our collective asses off the couch, but tbh there really isn't anything more important for us to do anyway so we might as well give this a shot. If it's too late we're going to have to start working on a really good explanation for the coming generations.
Nothing better to do? What many people don't realize is that for large parts of humanity the status quo is already catastrophic. You don't need global warming to have millions of people die to Malaria, millions of people starving, millions of people die to AIDS, to have millions of people without access to education or even clean drinking water.
According to current projections the population of Africa will rise from ca. 1 billion today to 2.3 billion in 2050, but the standard of living in Africa has hardly any chance to rise. A catastrophe right there!
So yeah, global warming is a problem, but only one among many our civilization faces.
|
On September 28 2013 18:34 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:20 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 18:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 18:15 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! It would cost many many trillions of dollars (and many many decades) to implement a nationwide rail system meant to be used as public transportation like they have in the UK. It is being invested into, but it takes a GIGANTIC amount of funding and time. Eventually, it will be viable in some places in the US like in the UK (in fact, it already is in places like NYC and SF). It will take a VERY long time though. It will never be viable in most of the midwest. It also does nothing to curb the expense (money and carbon emissions) of traveling around the country (particularly by plane). Outside of simply having cleaner fuel, any efforts to fundamentally alter the infrastructure of a large industrialized nation is largely a pipe dream. It will simply take too long, by the time it begins to have any effect it will be far too late to matter anyway. The money is probably better invested into research on alternative energy sources. Not that it would be, but still. Exactly. I would love it if we invested into more alternative energy sources. I am thrilled that Bill Gates is using some of his stash to invest into it. I wish so much that it could get more funding, private or otherwise. This may sound melodramatic, but the issue of clean energy and energy consumption in general are basically about the future of our species and our civilisation. There is literally not a single more important issue facing the human race, not even region locking WCS. Eh, it's actually not that hard: it would take thousands of years to actually run out of Uranium, even without reprocessing. Even at an extremely sold rate of growth. Plus, we can leech Uranium out of the ocean for a few millennium. (Though you would need some on-demand abilities, but hopefully industrial scale battery technology exists in 50-70 years) The issue is that it's Nuclear and Nuclear power only works with stable governments. Thus the problem. So, Fusion is your answer for the Grid systems. (There are spot places for Solar & Geo-thermal; Wind is mostly useless except at killing endangered bird species) However, Fusion is a monster Engineering problem and has been for the past 50 years. There's no easy answers, though a massive amount of options available. Though Fusion isn't without some risks. If you managed to ignite the atmosphere, at least there'd be no lawyers left to sue anyone. Or anyone else for that matter when the Earth is suddenly covered in a ball of plasma. But if Humanity goes out in a massive ball of burning Atmosphere, eh, that's not a bad way to go. At least it's artistically pleasing at the end.
Well yes, that was kind of what I meant, I don't consider nuclear power more than a bandaid, and a volatile one at that. It's better than coal and oil for sure, but that's about it. Fusion is our best bet, and it's pricy. As in really, REALLY pricy. But then again, money is sort of useless if there is nothing left to eat anyway.
And heck, going out in a giant ball of plasma sounds nearly as awesome as surfing down a volcano, on a shark.
Edit: And please stop bickering about what country did what and about who called who a poopypants. It actually does not matter nearly as much as you'd think.
Nothing better to do? What many people don't realize is that for large parts of humanity the status quo is already catastrophic. You don't need global warming to have millions of people die to Malaria, millions of people starving, millions of people die to AIDS, to have millions of people without access to education or even clean drinking water.
According to current projections the population of Africa will rise from ca. 1 billion today to 2.3 billion in 2050, but the standard of living in Africa has hardly any chance to rise. A catastrophe right there!
So yeah, global warming is a problem, but only one among many our civilization faces.
Which was the point I was trying to make about catastrophic population growth, and the need to curb it, I am perfectly aware of this. Apparently that makes me worse than Mecha-Hitler and Jerry Falwell combined.
|
On September 28 2013 18:27 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:25 Taf the Ghost wrote:On September 28 2013 17:33 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 12:57 And G wrote:
I'm not very knowledgeable about climate change, but I recall having heard (or read) somewhere that if humanity would immediately throttle emission of gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect to realistic minimum levels (i.e. without significantly reducing quality of living for anyone, but assuming that politicians and corporations would commit to combatting global warming instead of just pursuing their own agendas as is currently the case) then there would still be no measurable effect in terms of temperature for at least the next 40 years. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and ideally provide a source? Correct, this is about the long haul. No one alive today will likely be alive to see the true fallout of what is happening, one of the main reasons it's and easy and convenient problem to ignore. Just observe the bickering about chinese and american pollution, as if it mattered. Or the people here indignantly protesting having to make any personal sacrifices, as if there are and should not be any consequences for how we live. It's entirely possible that the problem is irreversible at this point and that our species is too fragmented to get our collective asses off the couch, but tbh there really isn't anything more important for us to do anyway so we might as well give this a shot. If it's too late we're going to have to start working on a really good explanation for the coming generations. Actually, here's the saddest bit: there is already plenty of very doable Geo-Engineering solutions that would work very quickly to correct most of the issues. (We're talking less than a decade) And this isn't science fiction. Which brings up the question: why don't you hear about them? Easy, as any Geo-Engineering solution doesn't require massive amounts of money, government intervention in markets or room for kickbacks for anyone involved. Though a few do include satellites, so I guess there's some room for graft. Of course, the flip side with that approach is if you "miss" and over-do it, hey, only a couple hundred Million people will starve if we suddenly lose 2 months of growing season per year! (A warmer planet is easier to grow on & none of the major cereal grain farming regions would be effected by a 20 foot sea level rise, so the North Hemisphere getting colder is actually a much more serious problem than 1C increase) Yeah, I'm sure that one would go down well in the history books. Would you care to cite some studies on these geo-engineering solutions that can work in less than a decade for cheap? EDIT: I am genuinely interested because I havent heard of any of these solutions, like you say.
I'm about to zonk, so forgive me for not spending a while to track down sources, but a few off the top of my head:
- Iron seeding the plankton plums (probably find information about it in the Ocean Acidity research; which is more of a problem than people like to talk about)
- Cloud seeding (from the Cosmic Ray/Cloud cycle research)
- There have been a few proposals for a Sun Deflector at different levels of Orbit (though mostly beyond-Moon Orbits)
- From the Albedo research, there was a pretty good proposal that all we needed to do was mandate that all new roofs be White. (Would require a bit more government interference & take a little longer, but only in the range of 30ish years)
I also remember there being an interesting proposal for "spraying" something interesting in the middle of the atmosphere to change the Albedo as well, but I can't remember what it was. (Or maybe that was about Chinese pollution possibly causing the "temperature pause"; there's so much of this stuff)
A quick & kind of important detail about all of this: the atmosphere mostly reflects energy, not keep it in. So the actual needed adjustment on the totality would be quite small, assuming the Climate Models are even in the ballpark. And the ideas generally given for Geo-Engineering would cost some money. So, a few billion. That's not a lot when considering spending Trillions (or just doing the economies that much damage) is likely to actually just raise total emissions as efficiencies are lost.
I guess I'll close by, again, pointing out that the IPCC has mostly been fear mongering since the 90s. There are problems with pollution, they need to be addressed, but ginning up fear about what might happen 100 years hence has always just encouraged everyone to ignore the practical for the over-the-top & power-grabbing options. The "Chicken Little" routine doesn't work when you've had sustained attacks on your data sets & your own models have been mostly worthless in tracking your own data.
There are serious problems in need of serious solutions that require all of the stakeholders involved in those problems to be involved. But that doesn't serve anyone drastically effected by the problems we have now.
|
On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! Nice try.
You've taken the most expensive light rail system in the history of the United States.
The actual costs for light rail range from $15 million to $100 million per mile, with an average of $35 million. Commuter rail ranges from $1 million per mile. There's no doubt that a national project would get the costs down (and possibly to a small fraction of this cost).
There's 10,000 miles of rail in the UK. Let's assume you needed 100,000 miles of light rail for the US. The costs of $35 million per mile on average would almost certainly plummet if a national project were undertaken, but to be generous I'll stick with the $35 million figure. Then it would cost 10^5 x 3.5 x 10^7 dollars. In other words, $3.5 trillion , or about 1/4 of the GDP per capita per annum of the United States. Compare the $1.7 trillion spent on the Iraq war or the $700 billion bank bail out. There's no doubt that $3 trillion is possible when the stakes are so high.
But realistically, you can divide that by 35, because for the most part we're really going to be using commuter rail (AKA suburban rail) rather than light rail. Indeed, you've specifically been referring to the suburban scenario. So we're really looking at $100 billion, or 1/7th of the bank bail out.
We also have to consider that a national project would cause construction costs to plummet as cheaper methods are developed (to say nothing of the possibility of volunteers). Moreover, it isn't even necessary to make up for the gap in carbon emissions purely by means of trains and rail. There's all kinds of other solutions, from coaches to car-sharing to investment in renewable energies and electric cars. These solutions don't occur to you because you never bothered to think. Because you have no interest in finding a solution. The real issue is that you don't want to do anything beyond the most feeble token gesture.
|
Hi rabiddeer, taf,
On September 28 2013 18:58 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:27 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Would you care to cite some studies on these geo-engineering solutions that can work in less than a decade for cheap?
EDIT: I am genuinely interested because I havent heard of any of these solutions, like you say. I'm about to zonk, so forgive me for not spending a while to track down sources, but a few off the top of my head: - Iron seeding the plankton plums (probably find information about it in the Ocean Acidity research; which is more of a problem than people like to talk about) - Cloud seeding (from the Cosmic Ray/Cloud cycle research) - There have been a few proposals for a Sun Deflector at different levels of Orbit (though mostly beyond-Moon Orbits) - From the Albedo research, there was a pretty good proposal that all we needed to do was mandate that all new roofs be White. (Would require a bit more government interference & take a little longer, but only in the range of 30ish years) I also remember there being an interesting proposal for "spraying" something interesting in the middle of the atmosphere to change the Albedo as well, but I can't remember what it was. (Or maybe that was about Chinese pollution possibly causing the "temperature pause"; there's so much of this stuff) A quick & kind of important detail about all of this: the atmosphere mostly reflects energy, not keep it in. So the actual needed adjustment on the totality would be quite small, assuming the Climate Models are even in the ballpark. And the ideas generally given for Geo-Engineering would cost some money. So, a few billion. That's not a lot when considering spending Trillions (or just doing the economies that much damage) is likely to actually just raise total emissions as efficiencies are lost. I guess I'll close by, again, pointing out that the IPCC has mostly been fear mongering since the 90s. There are problems with pollution, they need to be addressed, but ginning up fear about what might happen 100 years hence has always just encouraged everyone to ignore the practical for the over-the-top & power-grabbing options. The "Chicken Little" routine doesn't work when you've had sustained attacks on your data sets & your own models have been mostly worthless in tracking your own data. There are serious problems in need of serious solutions that require all of the stakeholders involved in those problems to be involved. But that doesn't serve anyone drastically effected by the problems we have now.
just to hop in (you might still know me from the TL vs climate change thread here in the same forum http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=294083 ), so just take my "credentials" from there
there is one technique that will be implemented soon, that is carbon sequestration and storage, CSS, i.e., to recapture carbon and store it under the Earth. It is unclear right now how efficient this will be.
There is essentially only ONE active technique that is robust and comparably cheap to do something against CO2 once it is in the atmosphere, that is the sulfur cloud seeding. Essentially we would simulate big volcanic eruptions by putting Sulfur in the stratosphere. The resulting cooling is fast, and also fastlived. People discuss it all over the place, because it is cheap and easy enough that SINGLE countries could in theory do it right now.
PRoblematic are
- we know that even if you can cool Earth down again on average, Earths climate will be changed anyway (an EArth with more CO2 and more Sulfur clouds != todays earth wrt precipitation). We dont know how these changes will be distributed and as precipitation is one of the most relevant climatic variables, this could very well be reason for international problems on large scales.
- it would have to be continous for ever (similar to nuclear waste things). if we for any reason stop doing the sulfur seeding for a year or two at any point in the next hundreds to thousands of years, there would be a massive increase in temperature.
- our cloud models are still pretty crap. people dont believe them when applied to climate change but believe them when they say that the resulting clouds would MOSTLY cool. I am working with these models and I would argue that is still quite uncertain.
- there is no law or governance institution that can handle global geoengineering at the moment. It is something that has to be discussed, though.
and just as an addendum: the IPCC as I perceive it has never been "scaremongering". It has been pictures as thus in the media due to a variety of reasons, but the IPCC scientists I know are hardworking and careful guys who would not get into the scaremongering business at all, but err at the side of caution.
Best regards, I hope that shows the geoengineering problems and potentials a little bit. I am a huge supporter of Geo engineering research, but I fear we dont know yet enough to say it can be part of the solution
W
|
On September 28 2013 19:17 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! Nice try. You've taken the most expensive light rail system in the history of the United States. The actual costs for light rail range from $15 million to $100 million per mile, with an average of $35 million. Commuter rail ranges from $1 million per mile. There's no doubt that a national project would get the costs down (and possibly to a small fraction of this cost). There's 10,000 miles of rail in the UK. Let's assume you needed 100,000 miles of light rail for the US. The costs of $35 million per mile on average would almost certainly plummet if a national project were undertaken, but to be generous I'll stick with the $35 million figure. Then it would cost 10^5 x 3.5 x 10^7 dollars. In other words, $3.5 trillion , or about 1/4 of the GDP per capita per annum of the United States. Compare the $1.7 trillion spent on the Iraq war or the $700 billion bank bail out. There's no doubt that $3 trillion is possible when the stakes are so high. But realistically, you can divide that by 35, because for the most part we're really going to be using commuter rail (AKA suburban rail) rather than light rail. Indeed, you've specifically been referring to the suburban scenario. So we're really looking at $100 billion, or 1/7th of the bank bail out. We also have to consider that a national project would cause construction costs to plummet as cheaper methods are developed (to say nothing of the possibility of volunteers). Moreover, it isn't even necessary to make up for the gap in carbon emissions purely by means of trains and rail. There's all kinds of other solutions, from coaches to car-sharing to investment in renewable energies and electric cars. These solutions don't occur to you because you never bothered to think. Because you have no interest in finding a solution. The real issue is that you don't want to do anything beyond the most feeble token gesture.
I mentioned Seattle because that is one that I personally experienced having lived in the area while it was being constructed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Construction_and_operation_costs
In regards to rail distances:
There is already 233k miles of railway in the US
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_miles_of_railroad_track_in_US
100k miles of light rail may very well not be enough. There are 3.9 million miles of road in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_United_States#Road_transportation
The road network in the UK is 50k miles (and train network of 10k miles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_the_United_Kingdom
3.9 million vs 50k. That is just SLIGHTLY more than your estimate of 10x distance.
|
On September 28 2013 20:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 19:17 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 18:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 17:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 17:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 10:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc. Utter crap and baloney. You haven't done the arithmetic, you have NO IDEA how viable this mode of transportation is. The fact that it works well in other countries, to the point of being cheaper than travelling by car, suggests to me that in a pinch it actually IS viable in the US. The issue is that you have no intention of making sacrifices, even if it's to merely to invest in railways, or indeed green energy so the transition can be made to electric cars (a point you keep ignoring). I'm not biased against Americans, I'm biased against individuals whose sense of morality is so warped that they live in one of the most affluent countries in the world, yet grope for excuses regarding why they should be exempted from cutting carbon emissions. I have done enough fact checking debunking your bullshit theories, how about you present your own facts that trains are viable in all of the US for a change? "It works in our tiny condensed country, therefore it must work EVERYWHERE" is not a valid logical conclusion. EDIT: And stop using buzzwords like "apologists". Your bias is showing when you spout shit like that. Fact-checking? All you have done is post completely irrelevant figure about average-driving distance. You didn't even bother to inquire into whether fuel prices might have any bearing. (US fuel prices are among the lowest in the world.) As for trains being viable, I already showed you that they are the cheaper mode of transport in the UK. Why would they not be viable in the US? You haven't produced a single reason other than that they require investment. So, basically what youre saying here is "I have no proof other than the fact that we have something here" They require MASSIVE investment. Also, requiring investment is KIND of a big deal. You need money to make stuff, and I dunno if you have paid any attention to the news recently... but the US isnt exactly floating money. Here is some food for thought: The interstate highway system that we all love and cherish in the US so much was funded in 1956 and wasnt "completed" until 1992. 36 years to connect each state by road. Even more interesting, it took that long as a MILITARY based project for defense of the US! Yea, the highways were built so that we could move convoys across the country in an efficient manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_SystemIt cost 450 billion to make using relatively cheap materials and tons of very cheap land A 14 mile stretch of rail in Seattle costs $2.8 billion and will not be complete until 2023 http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/04/25/sound-transit-bellevue-come-to-terms.htmlAnother 13.9 mile stretch that has been completed (Central Link) cost $2.57 billion http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9253Do you know why it costs so much? Because in cities where people would use them, land is expensive because there are already cities and highways and freeways there! Nice try. You've taken the most expensive light rail system in the history of the United States. The actual costs for light rail range from $15 million to $100 million per mile, with an average of $35 million. Commuter rail ranges from $1 million per mile. There's no doubt that a national project would get the costs down (and possibly to a small fraction of this cost). There's 10,000 miles of rail in the UK. Let's assume you needed 100,000 miles of light rail for the US. The costs of $35 million per mile on average would almost certainly plummet if a national project were undertaken, but to be generous I'll stick with the $35 million figure. Then it would cost 10^5 x 3.5 x 10^7 dollars. In other words, $3.5 trillion , or about 1/4 of the GDP per capita per annum of the United States. Compare the $1.7 trillion spent on the Iraq war or the $700 billion bank bail out. There's no doubt that $3 trillion is possible when the stakes are so high. But realistically, you can divide that by 35, because for the most part we're really going to be using commuter rail (AKA suburban rail) rather than light rail. Indeed, you've specifically been referring to the suburban scenario. So we're really looking at $100 billion, or 1/7th of the bank bail out. We also have to consider that a national project would cause construction costs to plummet as cheaper methods are developed (to say nothing of the possibility of volunteers). Moreover, it isn't even necessary to make up for the gap in carbon emissions purely by means of trains and rail. There's all kinds of other solutions, from coaches to car-sharing to investment in renewable energies and electric cars. These solutions don't occur to you because you never bothered to think. Because you have no interest in finding a solution. The real issue is that you don't want to do anything beyond the most feeble token gesture. I mentioned Seattle because that is one that I personally experienced having lived in the area while it was being constructed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Construction_and_operation_costsIn regards to rail distances: There is already 233k miles of railway in the US http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_miles_of_railroad_track_in_US100k miles of light rail may very well not be enough. There are 3.9 million miles of road in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_United_States#Road_transportationThe road network in the UK is 50k miles (and train network of 10k miles) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_the_United_Kingdom3.9 million vs 50k. That is just SLIGHTLY more than your estimate of 10x distance. Hard to know what to say when faced with such a dishonest arguer.
First you mention specifically the problem of commuting in suburban neighbourhoods. I suggest increasing quantity of rails by 50% as a solution to the problem...now you're on about a completely UNRELATED problem, which is covering the entire US in rails. You pull out of your ass some random assumption that existing rail services are thoroughly inadequate, even though you can easily find that 90% of the US population can be accessed through passenger rail.
Then you strike a false equivalence between miles of rails and miles of roads...as if the two need to be even remotely comparable for commuting by train to be an option. Breaking news: they don't.
Then you compare the quantity of main roads in the UK with the total quantity of all roads in the US and arrive at a ridiculous figure which should have been implausible on its face. Road network of the US is actually about 16 times as long. My figure of 10 times the size of rail network of the UK required as an addition to the current US network was quite reasonable and quite generous to your side of the debate.
And once again, you completely sidestep and ignore the point about alternative solutions to the problem.
|
So what if we made the world a fraction of a degree warmer. Im totally fine with that. Some might have to migrate, but we always have and still do. Out historical upswings have been closely related to an advantagous WARM climate.
When it comes down to it, there is NO WAY we will change our lifestyles enough for us to change anything about the climate. Jobs, food and transport is just too important to us. I dont worry at all. Climate models have never helped us with anything, only made us all more worried and given false dramatic predictions. Give me a model which can if I get a good summer in 10 years and I will respect them. They are not even close!
|
On September 28 2013 22:21 Slydie wrote:
So what if we made the world a fraction of a degree warmer. Im totally fine with that. Some might have to migrate, but we always have and still do. Out historical upswings have been closely related to an advantagous WARM climate.
When it comes down to it, there is NO WAY we will change our lifestyles enough for us to change anything about the climate. Jobs, food and transport is just too important to us. I dont worry at all. Climate models have never helped us with anything, only made us all more worried and given false dramatic predictions. Give me a model which can if I get a good summer in 10 years and I will respect them. They are not even close!
The problem in a nut shell, basically.
|
A fraction of a degree is the average. What it means is that the summers get warmer by several degrees, the winters get colder by several degrees, and the net change is a fraction of a degree.
A warmer summer means flora and fauna change - tropical conditions spread (and not just tropical, but desert conditions too) during summer months. Things like mosquitos start to pop up in regions where they normally don't show up - and they show up earlier in regions that they do normally visit. Glacial ice melt at a higher rate during the summers, and they do not recover during the winters. Just a fraction of a degree may be all you see on paper, but the global ecosystem doesn't just see a degree - it sees a direction of movement.
Climate models as described by climate scientists aren't meant to "help us" with anything. They are meant to be interpreted. Unfortunately there's people out there who interpret these models to both extremes - "the world is going to end" and "this is bullshit". How can they "give you a model for a good summer in 10 years" if they have no control over their variables? Next, you are going to tell physicists to give you a model that allows you to disregard gravity? These scientists observe the current status and provide data showing the trends and the expected results - that's what they do.
As far as what should we do to fix it - we take baby steps. We engineer mode efficient power solutions, we engineer better operating cities, we engineer better transportation systems. There is no sudden fix, and people should not be adverse to energy efficient solutions. And yes - a lot of the energy efficient solutions right now have their own downsides. Should we just ditch those solutions, or should we perhaps try to make them better? I'm the type of person that thinks - you know what, let's try to make the solution better, instead of dropping it completely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
