Environmental Issues

[Bishop2b5]

So this was a bit of a boondoggle, had a flawed design and or fell short of projected output. That sucks.

Why not leave it at that instead of using this to set up a strawman argument against “green energy”?

Now, to provide some context in terms of comparable impacts I’m pretty confident that this project won’t even come close to registering on the list of worst disasters due to energy sources and or their delivery systems failing spectacularly.

This project cost over $2.2 billion to build, plus several million per year to operate... all at a loss. That's a "bit of a boondoggle" in the way that WWII was a "bit of a dustup."

I'm not against green energy. I'm against virtue signaling, feel good policies that accomplish nothing, and stupid projects undertaken for political reasons instead of their efficacy. Green energy projects just tend to be particularly prone to such, as this one was.

 

[drayer54]

Ok sure.

I don’t think solar has been subsidized as much as fossil fuels or nuclear to this point. How about pulling the plug on later while continuing to subsidize the former to the level and over the same time frame those others enjoyed before pulling the plug?

If one is being serious about energy resilience in the face of interruptions small scale decentralized systems like residential solar and batteries make waaaaaay more sense in my opinion as opposed to the current large scale, centralized corporate delivery model in terms of resiliency in the face of natural disasters, avoiding catastrophic failures that cause large scale disasters and or interruptions to service.

Nuclear has been slammed with costly regulations and hasn't gotten the production tax credit. Both sides have stuck NRC folks in to hammer nukes on behalf of either the environmentalists or the fossil industry.

 

[RDU Irish]

This project cost over $2.2 billion to build, plus several million per year to operate... all at a loss. That's a "bit of a boondoggle" in the way that WWII was a "bit of a dustup."

I'm not against green energy. I'm against virtue signaling, feel good policies that accomplish nothing, and stupid projects undertaken for political reasons instead of their efficacy. Green energy projects just tend to be particularly prone to such, as this one was.

So you hate California?

That is some convoluted subsidy definition of an industry producing billions in revenue to government above and beyond the taxes collected on 2M direct O&G employees in the US. There are tons of ancillary local and federal revenues on private land owners collecting royalties, tax on corporate profits, capital gains on invested assets and so on. Positive ROI projects have that evil capitalist benefit of making money. Let's not forget $50B+ of tax collected annually on gasoline sold to end consumers - very regressive tax that subsidizes EVs freeloading on infrastructure.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46537
Motor fuel tax revenue U.S. 2021| Statista

5.6% of total US employment linked to O&G industry.
How many jobs has the oil and natural gas industry created?

 

[Irish#1]

Ok sure.

I don’t think solar has been subsidized as much as fossil fuels or nuclear to this point. How about pulling the plug on later while continuing to subsidize the former to the level and over the same time frame those others enjoyed before pulling the plug?

If one is being serious about energy resilience in the face of interruptions small scale decentralized systems like residential solar and batteries make waaaaaay more sense in my opinion as opposed to the current large scale, centralized corporate delivery model in terms of resiliency in the face of natural disasters, avoiding catastrophic failures that cause large scale disasters and or interruptions to service.

This may be the answer. Subsidize implementation of solar or even small windmills for each homeowner. Make it a requirement for each new home that is built. We're so ingrained with having large corporations providing all the power, nobody thinks out of the box. Corps could continue to supply to city utilities.

 

[Irish#1]

Nuclear has been slammed with costly regulations and hasn't gotten the production tax credit. Both sides have stuck NRC folks in to hammer nukes on behalf of either the environmentalists or the fossil industry.

I think we missed the boat with nuclear. Three Mile and Chernobyl made everyone afraid to move forward. Technology has advanced enough today to make it a safe alternative.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

Subsidize implementation of solar or even small windmills for each homeowner.

Solar subsidization programs already exist. (1)

By the way...the GOP controlled House passed a bill trying to end the program at the end of this year.

 

[TorontoGold]

This may be the answer. Subsidize implementation of solar or even small windmills for each homeowner. Make it a requirement for each new home that is built. We're so ingrained with having large corporations providing all the power, nobody thinks out of the box. Corps could continue to supply to city utilities.

This policy would be DOA. I think this is would anger classic Libs that wouldn't want to pass meaningful green energy policies, and conversatives who spend each waking moment bemoaning government overreach would HATE supporting green energy and also the fact it would cut into profit margins since we know the government wouldn't just offset the full cost.

FYI - I would fully support this idea.

 

[RDU Irish]

This may be the answer. Subsidize implementation of solar or even small windmills for each homeowner. Make it a requirement for each new home that is built. We're so ingrained with having large corporations providing all the power, nobody thinks out of the box. Corps could continue to supply to city utilities.

Closed loop geothermal heat pumps would probably be lightyears more cost effective and long term sustainable IMO.

Any one have direct experience with these solar systems? Seems like insurance would be a multiples higher for cost of replacing a damaged roof. Isn't there increased fire risk? Don't they have to shut down when the grid goes down so you aren't backfilling the power grid while they work on it?

I agree the answer to solar is localized utilization. Clear cutting a parcel to "pave" it with solar panels seems anti-environment to me.

 

[Old Man Mike]

A simple "market-compatible" aid to encouraging people to make their own choices has been applied in some states. That is, require the big grid companies to buy back personally-generated (ex. solar, wind, or water) amounts of electricity when the small personal owners create more than they require at the moment. This buy back usually is only accepted by big generators at a serious lowered pay rate, but the more useful (and to my mind, fair) state laws require equal rate buy-back. States which have these equal-both-ways laws have noticeably higher build rates for personal wind and solar home projects.

This is, of course, a baby step and even this is opposed by big power. A better added incentive would be very low interest loans to help individuals get over the big initial equipment outlay, which crushes many persons' hopes to make it as much on their own as possible. As to people who think that this is some far-left horribly "green" thing, please note that many "green" ideas are based upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and OPPORTUNITIES to scout their own futures outside of the constricting grasp of overpowering BIGNESS. And, generally caring for the environment is also a "personal" philosophy --- check the "outdoorsmen" etc of the world. This is not "Red" nor "Blue" but "Green." I wish that people would stop putting everything in "red" or "blue" terms. Those often jackass organizations have entirely different power agendas especially in recent years.

 

[Irish#1]

This policy would be DOA. I think this is would anger classic Libs that wouldn't want to pass meaningful green energy policies, and conversatives who spend each waking moment bemoaning government overreach would HATE supporting green energy and also the fact it would cut into profit margins since we know the government wouldn't just offset the full cost.

FYI - I would fully support this idea.

There's probably too much money and influence coming from lobbyist and power companies for something like this to ever happen. It would probably take local legislators requiring new home builders to include it. Then you have the issue of does the additional cost price the home out of reach?

Closed loop geothermal heat pumps would probably be lightyears more cost effective and long term sustainable IMO.

Any one have direct experience with these solar systems? Seems like insurance would be a multiples higher for cost of replacing a damaged roof. Isn't there increased fire risk? Don't they have to shut down when the grid goes down so you aren't backfilling the power grid while they work on it?

I agree the answer to solar is localized utilization. Clear cutting a parcel to "pave" it with solar panels seems anti-environment to me.

I had forgot about Geothermal, but another option. Don't know about the fire risk. Seems there should be a way to store or safely dissipate when the grid is down.

 

[Irish#1]

A simple "market-compatible" aid to encouraging people to make their own choices has been applied in some states. That is, require the big grid companies to buy back personally-generated (ex. solar, wind, or water) amounts of electricity when the small personal owners create more than they require at the moment. This buy back usually is only accepted by big generators at a serious lowered pay rate, but the more useful (and to my mind, fair) state laws require equal rate buy-back. States which have these equal-both-ways laws have noticeably higher build rates for personal wind and solar home projects.

This is, of course, a baby step and even this is opposed by big power. A better added incentive would be very low interest loans to help individuals get over the big initial equipment outlay, which crushes many persons' hopes to make it as much on their own as possible. As to people who think that this is some far-left horribly "green" thing, please note that many "green" ideas are based upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and OPPORTUNITIES to scout their own futures outside of the constricting grasp of overpowering BIGNESS. And, generally caring for the environment is also a "personal" philosophy --- check the "outdoorsmen" etc of the world. This is not "Red" nor "Blue" but "Green." I wish that people would stop putting everything in "red" or "blue" terms. Those often jackass organizations have entirely different power agendas especially in recent years.

TBH, I don't think people see this as red or blue. Everyone is for being eco friendly and saving resources. The disagreement comes in when people make claims like Florida being under water in 10 years due to the ice melting or our ozone is going to be depleted soon. We just had a report of the Antarctica icecap increasing. There's also a report on the hole in the ozone closing. This doesn't mean we shouldn't continue our efforts. How much have our efforts contributed to these improvements I don't know, but I'm a believer that Mother Nature is also resilient. Mt. Saint Helens is an example.

Large and persistent 2023 ozone hole closes | Copernicus

The 2023 ozone hole completed its cycle after a series of twists, turns and rebounds that surprised the specialists. The ozone hole opened early and fast, becoming one of the largest on record in mid-September, and it’s one of the longest-lived observed to date. The causes of this behaviour...

atmosphere.copernicus.eu

NASA satellites show Antarctica has gained ice despite rising global temperatures. How is that possible?

An abrupt change in Antarctica has caused the continent to gain ice. But this increase, documented in NASA satellite data, is a temporary anomaly rather than an indication that global warming has reversed, scientists say.

www.livescience.com

 

[Old Man Mike]

Good Lord. Environmental CHEMISTRY in action was what has closed/healed the REAL ozone hole/thinness being caused by CFC compounds destroying it in the atmosphere. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry was given to the discoverers/demonstrators of the precise detailed (difficult) chemistry. The success has taken MANY years to heal the damage done over decades (the atmosphere is a BIG place and a lot to heal.) The big business leader who deserves some credit in this was the big chip maker at the time (c.40 years ago) who went into its own labs and found that water could be used to replace CFCs, and told the rest of the industry and the politicians to drop their bias and shut up. Only then did we outlaw the ozone killer --- people need to get educated about these fundamental things. Read Sherwood Rowland's bio for part of the basics. ...... the comment about ice growing in one spot is another straw man. The other comment exaggerating pundits (not the relevant scientists) views on ocean level rise should also be stated with less ignorance. Even the damm military is relocating new structure planning further from the coast (you know why? THEY READ.) . My Florida buddy is having water incursion real life issues at his coastal home. Freshwater ecologies are being polluted by the saltwater incursions. ...... does anyone study science and real geography stats anymore?

 

[BuaConstrictor]

Everyone is for being eco friendly and saving resources.

More flat out fucking lies from you. (1)

You are truly a dishonest piece of shit.

 

[Giddyup]

Wow. Bua is unhinged again. Surprised

 

[Irish#1]

Good Lord. Environmental CHEMISTRY in action was what has closed/healed the REAL ozone hole/thinness being caused by CFC compounds destroying it in the atmosphere. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry was given to the discoverers/demonstrators of the precise detailed (difficult) chemistry. The success has taken MANY years to heal the damage done over decades (the atmosphere is a BIG place and a lot to heal.) The big business leader who deserves some credit in this was the big chip maker at the time (c.40 years ago) who went into its own labs and found that water could be used to replace CFCs, and told the rest of the industry and the politicians to drop their bias and shut up. Only then did we outlaw the ozone killer --- people need to get educated about these fundamental things. Read Sherwood Rowland's bio for part of the basics. ...... the comment about ice growing in one spot is another straw man. The other comment exaggerating pundits (not the relevant scientists) views on ocean level rise should also be stated with less ignorance. Even the damm military is relocating new structure planning further from the coast (you know why? THEY READ.) . My Florida buddy is having water incursion real life issues at his coastal home. Freshwater ecologies are being polluted by the saltwater incursions. ...... does anyone study science and real geography stats anymore?

Sorry Mike. I’m not retired. Don’t have time to read to the depths that you do.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

Don’t have time to read to the depths that you do.

Way to excuse your fucking ignorance.

Go fuck yourself.

 

[Sea Turtle]

Wow. Bua is unhinged again. Surprised

Is he back from L.A with plenty to say?

 

[Old Man Mike]

I'm not asking that. I'm making what you would probably agree to on reflection: That people should not be making strongly worded statements about controversial things if they know they haven't really done any study. What's your motivation for doing so? Doesn't seem good educational practice does it? One who has not studied might phrase points of interest using question marks and humble language wouldn't you think? I wrote as strongly as I did because I TAUGHT Environmental science in college for twenty years. On things I haven't studied, I DON'T comment about them, although I might ask questions.

 

[Irish#1]

I'm not asking that. I'm making what you would probably agree to on reflection: That people should not be making strongly worded statements about controversial things if they know they haven't really done any study. What's your motivation for doing so? Doesn't seem good educational practice does it? One who has not studied might phrase points of interest using question marks and humble language wouldn't you think? I wrote as strongly as I did because I TAUGHT Environmental science in college for twenty years. On things I haven't studied, I DON'T comment about them, although I might ask questions.

If you reread my comment, you'll see I said, "How much have our efforts contributed to these improvements I don't know" and I prefaced it by saying, "this doesn't mean we shouldn't continue our efforts."

I think we pretty much agree. I have no doubt you are being genuine when you wrote about your friend in Florida. My point was simply pointing out the exaggeration that we've seen when it comes to climate change. It's been at least a couple of decades since we were told Florida would be under water in ten years. It doesn't mean Florida's coastline isn't changing, but the speed of which it is happening isn't as severe as we've been told.

 

[Irish#1]

This is pretty cool.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/west/video-eaglet-first-flight-big-bear-valley/

 

[BuaConstrictor]

"How much have our efforts contributed to these improvements I don't know"

You could always find the fuck out.

 

[Old Man Mike]

You were not told that "Florida" would be underwater in ten years by the environmental professional scientists.

The professional climate change model predictors stated statistical odds that ocean volume increases would threaten the freshwater ecology of nearly the entire Everglades over the next several decades plus the southern Florida low areas (including many structural elements of Miami) and odds would increase (not in speed --- ocean swelling is a slow but nearly unstoppable march, and equally hard to reverse one started [[i.e. there is a type of thermodynamic "inertia" in this damm situation which terrorizes us science-types]]) that the final encroachments would be further inland. One is driven to note that "Florida" does not have to go completely underwater for serious coastal incursions to Miami, the Everglades, and the beach areas to sustain colossal economic and environmental collapses.

It, perhaps understandably to some, drives me and my teacher colleagues desperately crazy to constantly read glib trashing of our seriously arrived at and data-based and physics based concerns for this old planet and our citizens. Every such glib dismissal cements the current meme which says: who gives a damm about what those scientists believe; when have they ever been right?

 

[Old Man Mike]

Attached is a scientifically-conservative outlook by the climate experts at the University of Florida which models areas with serious incursions and areas with advanced flooding issues if we have only a 2 foot ocean swelling (plus areas if the equally probable 3-4 foot rise ultimately occurs.) Florida State's scientists are predicting something very similar. Florida Atlantic's surveys show right around 90% of Florida's citizens believe they are already seeing the signs.

 

[Irish#1]

You were not told that "Florida" would be underwater in ten years by the environmental professional scientists.

The professional climate change model predictors stated statistical odds that ocean volume increases would threaten the freshwater ecology of nearly the entire Everglades over the next several decades plus the southern Florida low areas (including many structural elements of Miami) and odds would increase (not in speed --- ocean swelling is a slow but nearly unstoppable march, and equally hard to reverse one started [[i.e. there is a type of thermodynamic "inertia" in this damm situation which terrorizes us science-types]]) that the final encroachments would be further inland. One is driven to note that "Florida" does not have to go completely underwater for serious coastal incursions to Miami, the Everglades, and the beach areas to sustain colossal economic and environmental collapses.

It, perhaps understandably to some, drives me and my teacher colleagues desperately crazy to constantly read glib trashing of our seriously arrived at and data-based and physics based concerns for this old planet and our citizens. Every such glib dismissal cements the current meme which says: who gives a damm about what those scientists believe; when have they ever been right?

Even if it wasn't environmental scientists (I'll take your word on that), the rhetoric was out there by some who the media decided were credible enough to write about it and that's a problem. The general public isn't going to dive into reading publications and studies from scientist, but they'll catch a brief segment on the news and react. Look how people reacted to Greta Thunberg initially.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

Even if it wasn't environmental scientists (I'll take your word on that), the rhetoric was out there by some who the media decided were credible enough to write about it and that's a problem. The general public isn't going to dive into reading publications and studies from scientist, but they'll catch a brief segment on the news and react. Look how people reacted to Greta Thunberg initially.

So it's the scientists fault that people like you are stupid and lazy?..even too stupid and lazy to do THIS search?

 

[RDU Irish]

Attached is a scientifically-conservative outlook by the climate experts at the University of Florida which models areas with serious incursions and areas with advanced flooding issues if we have only a 2 foot ocean swelling (plus areas if the equally probable 3-4 foot rise ultimately occurs.) Florida State's scientists are predicting something very similar. Florida Atlantic's surveys show right around 90% of Florida's citizens believe they are already seeing the signs.

View attachment 3059057

When you say "two foot swelling" I hear "ocean levels two feet higher than today"- is that fair? How does that compare to the impacts of warming over the last say 100 years? What timeframe are we talking about for us to go from today to a two foot higher "normal"? Two feet isn't really that much when you consider tens of meters of change is to be expected over 10k-20k years. Stable levels appear to be abnormal if anything.

Sea Level in the Past 200,000 Years | Coastal Processes, Hazards, and Society
125,000 years ago sea levels were 8 meters higher than today at the peak of the last warming trend. Why would we think the warming trend of the last 20,000 years was done or is the thought we need to stop warming regardless of the cause (anthropogenic or not?).

 

[NDWarrior]

Wow! I just found out that all these threads exist here on IE such as this one and also for Politics, Immigration, and Economics. Don't know how I haven't stumbled on these up to now! Let me jump right on in case anyone has any expertise in this area. This is 100% speculation but, do some of you also think it's not strange that first Lake Tahoe on 6/21 has this freak lake swell where boats are capsized and 8 or 9 people die (the ones not wearing lifejackets!) and then this Hill Country TX major flood where 100s are going to end up perishing? I have no proof, obviously, but there is this technology that's been around for a while called Cloud Seeding that maybe has just gotten a lot more powerful to the point where perhaps it can rapidly accelerate the rain produced by the storm clouds its manipulating via silver iodide application (or maybe something newer and more powerful). A few interesting circumstantial connections: 1) Rainmaker Technology as I'm sure many of you have read applied a standard silver iodide application on July 2 and then ceased operations and now he is saying there's no way that caused Kerr County TX level of flooding and is not possible at levels that were applied on 7/2; 2) Interesting that Hill Country is an area that is targeted under Project Stargate, a $500 Billion AI-focused Data Center building project. As you might now, AI data center require massive Data Centers and massive cooling and the appetite grows like 10x every 6 mos. I believe Elon Musk stated. Why would the government and Rainmaker doe this? For 1), it would be a good test on scale much larger than the Lake Tahoe event and 2) it might make a data center there now post flooding easier, cheaper, and faster to build. Hill Country local governments are concerned (rightly so) about DC emissions, especially from gas turbine generators, which a number of TX-focused hyperscalers want to build since 1) More green options are not enough and cleaner fossil fuel-based energy like hydrogen based take a lot longer to build.

 

[NDWarrior]

You can already see how this may have transpired by looking up what Elon Musk did with one of his first gas-turbine DCs built in a poor rural and black county outside Memphis TN (google it). He need power sooner rather than later and had 20 gas generators brought in w/ no local govt. oversight or approval. Black folks (esp. older ones) are now getting COPD and high incidences of lung cancer. Supposedly Elon shut half of them off under pressure from the county. It may now be easier to get a DC (even a gas turbine one) approved and built in Kerr County where the residents are devastated and vulnerable after this terrible flood. We'll have to see how this transpires. (By the way, if you watch the Monday WH press conference that spent about 10 minutes discussing this terrible tragedy, President Trump and Kristi Noem, have the strangest / oddest discussion around the tragedy. Just not how a President and Cabinet would react after such a tragedy)... Talking to each other and never making eye contact into the camera like behind the scenes they knew this was going down and oh, what a tragedy. Trump even says something in the last 30 second of discussion about there still being parts of the county still salvageable for something like that which is kind of strange. And this young chap Augustus Doricko, is a total Peter Thiel (Thiel Fellow) who got $100K from Thiel to get started and Doricko is very Tech Bros. Fundamental Christian and I'm sure has that same warped Thiel/JD Vance thinking about establishing a Techno Theocracy. Doricko has definitely been mingling with MAGA elites over the past year. Read the Mother Jones article on this So Cal (El Segundo CA) cult of ultra Christian Tech Bros. called Gundo Bros. (they sound like a twisted cult who thinks they do the work of God on Earth). We are so f----ed!

 

[Giddyup]

Mother Jones article. Lol. That's precious. Is that where u get your info from? That's some crazy shit u posted. But to each your own

"President Trump and Kristi Noem, have the strangest / oddest discussion around the tragedy. Just not how a President and Cabinet would react after such a tragedy)... Talking to each other and never making eye contact into the camera like behind the scenes they knew this was going down and oh, what a tragedy. Trump"

Should have written that in crayon

 

[NDWarrior]

Lastly, don't doubt that the cloud seeding (or whatever it has now accelerated into that's much more powerful) can be a real thing. If you read this long article that discusses what he's doing with weather modification, you can get an idea of how things are advancing. All speculation but it sounds like with some technological help (likely Elon Musk's Starlink?) he and his team are likely now able to hone on much more accurately (he says via radar, but couldn't advanced satellite technology make great advancements here?) being able to drop what he calls the "nucleation agent" or NCA (which sounds like is a much improved agent that is no longer silver iodide) lower and closer to the point of conversion into rain. And, his company uses drones to drop the NCA - Well let's see, Palantir and Starlink create drones that are wreaking havoc in Russia and Palestine I've read so I'm sure advanced hard-to-detect drones help to make this a stealth operation and to apply a lot of NCA at once and efficiently if desired. All speculation and conspiracy-like but this is some scary stuff and not entirely unimaginable if you really understand The New Right Tech Bros. Ultra Christian/Christian Nationalism movement that has a lot of $ and influence behind the current administration including and especially JD Vance.