What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
Facism and Communism are pretty far on the extremes. Geo claimed to be a right of center person but he clearly thinks the answer lies with government.
In fact, now that I have access to a real keyboard (I normally am on an iPhone when I post) I'm going to go through Geo's solution:
A gradual phasing out of existing coal/ gas/ oil plants over a 30 year timespan. If this turns out to be too optimistic, it could be extended to 50 years... but there has to be a time limit.
1. A moratorium on building new carbon-based plants.
2. Setting a 30 year time limit for use of existing plants, sso that they won't be kept alive and breathing forever by endless patchwork.
This involves the government forcing people to do something. This is all very command economy stuff. Definitely not a right of center solution.
In order to ensure continued supply of energy: 3. Expand on solar/ wind/ nuclear/ hydro-electric energy - whichever is appropriate in a particular case. Or switch to a hydrogen- or [clean]gas-based economy. We should start with large-scale pilot projects for 10 years to see which one is most viable and to allow technology to mature.
In order to ensure continued supply of energy:
3. Expand on solar/ wind/ nuclear/ hydro-electric energy - whichever is appropriate in a particular case. Or switch to a hydrogen- or [clean]gas-based economy. We should start with large-scale pilot projects for 10 years to see which one is most viable and to allow technology to mature.
The sun doesn't work well without the sun. Wind doesn't work well without wind. We've pretty much maxed our hydro use. Nuclear is definitely viable.
4. Expand research budgets for alternative fuel sources:
- solar energy
- hydrogen based economy
- super-conducting energy cables
- production of natural gas from the atmosphere, allowing a gas-based economy. This may allow existing energy plants to continue production.
- wind energy
- ocean/wave energy
- nuclear fusion
- thorium (limited to existing nuclear super-powers)
Whose budgets? The government's budget? Again, don't claim to be a right of center thinking and then post solutions that rely on a massive expansion of government powers.
The power sources most people enjoy today came from the private sector. The market will continue to deliver new sources of energy. We've only been using oil for about a century.
We can re-route funding for climate research into research for actual solutions. If that's not enough money, we could channel money from the military to research.
There's not that much funding in climate research. But you do make clear that you expect a central government with a command economy to solve this.
5. As backup-plan in case things take longer than expected, also spend some money on research for capturing carbon, eg. in freshly exposed rocks, or by stimulating algae growth in the oceans.
Why? You continue to presume that CO2 in the atmosphere is somehow a major cause of our climate. CO2 is 0.4% of the air and not a particularly effective greenhouse gas.
6. All of this requires complete commitment from every country in the world. World leaders will have to set aside (partially at least) their domestic self-interests for 50 years and re-make their economy.
Complete commitment and a total command economy. This isn't really a solution but more a left-wing fantasy.
7. In case it proves to be too costly for some countries then either some countries could be granted more time to reach the goals. Or they can make claim on a central fund for extra money to reach the goals. To avoid abuse of such funds, such a country will have to go through a thorough budget analysis (like the southern countries in Europe) and give up some of their autonomy before they can get the funding.
Granted by whom? A new, world dictator?
This whole conversation is going to seem ridiculous in 30 years when most of our energy comes from nano-based solar collectors sprayed on everything and then stored in various large-scale energy collectors (not batteries, we'll have something else).
You could say that I have great faith in the market to deliver solutions. That is true. I do. Unlike the government, they have a good track record for delivering the goods.
I don't really understand why it is prohibited for a right center person to believe in governmental influence over the economy and various things? And I guess everyone likes things from the other side as well, like a liberal likes some conservative things and etc.
It is true they deliver the goods, but market is very insensitive towards environmental problems, and I don't really see that much development in non fossil energy sources. There is some, but not that much as it is not very profitable, and oil companies have huge influence. I do feel like they are delaying the development of non-fossil energy sources, and how will the market solve this problem in the forecoming decades?
And what if it will be too late when the market finally decides it is a good thing to leave fossil energy sources behind as they pollute the planet like crazy and will run out in a handful of decades?
So we've been hearing since the 1930s.
In reality if we really have hit peak oil we're approaching some drastic spike in oil prices, that will just hasten the switch to alternatives.
I'm center-right because I don't care where the money comes from. Other research, the militiary, or even social programs, I just don't care.
I've not called for intense government intervention. I call for a moratorium on coal fueled plants, over a long period of 50 years.
The rest can be left to the free market. I don't want subsidies or other types of red tape.
I think that what I propose is the smallest amount of government influence that you can imagine, and I think it's needed to steer the current "free market" that's running blindly in a self-destructive manner to a situation that's more friendly for future generations. That's the task of any government, even right governments have to make tough decisions sometimes. They don't have to be just a tool for a completely free market that's running out of control...
I don't think you understand that the free market is bigger than just solar cells. The part that consists of oil, gas and coal exploitation is far bigger and it's growing wildly. It's just completely out of control, to satisfy the world's energy need any available source is being targeted, ANY source no matter how unattractive and pollutive. Low grade coal? Low grade oil? The technology is there, and we don't have to change how we build our cars or how we produce out energy - so it's attractive so let's just use it all !
That's the free market for you.
It will surely happen one day.. As their rate of renewal is around millions of years.
Noone said we reached peak oil extraction, it is somewhere near but for some decades we won't reach it I guess. Keyword is guess, because the amount of oil and gas is unsure.
Peak oil is variable and depends on the price one wants to pay for the oil. Theoretically there's a lot of oil, but most of that oil is just not economically viable: fields are too small, or it's too costly to extract.
Consider the fracking "revolution": it produces oil in an inefficient way, at much higher cost than say 50 years ago when people just had to drill a hole and oil would flow out for free for many decades.
The high-quality oil wells are often exhausted nowadays and it is very rare to find new fields like those.
What's left for us by our predecessors of the last 100 years, is the less easy oil wells with lower reservers per oil field and lower quality oil.
And in 30 (or maybe a few more) years from now, what's left for our successors is hard-to-access oil with very low quality, like the tar sands and oil shales.
It also takes more energy (oil) to produce the oil, thus creating an ever smaller return.
So... if we throw enough money at it, people can postpone a "peak" for a long time.
The problem with people is, that they're prepared to go a long way to keep things as they are, even if it'll cost a lot (or maybe I should say: even if it kills them). So the danger is, that we could go on for a hundred more years like this and spend a lot of money and resources on extracting ever costlier oil (and with a lot of money I mean trillions of dollars in cumulative investments into a dead-end industry just to postpone the inevitable...).
Just think of the kind of weird things can happen in the future? Things like burning lots of cheap coal to generate the heat/energy to extract oil from tar sands which can then be sold at a premium price on the market. Or maybe they'll build a large hydro-electric plant to supply the energy - instead of using the electricity directly. Or maybe they'll just burn half of the oil they exploit, to exploit more oil. If the next generations are as inventive and determined as us, then anything is possible
Just think about the way the Chinese mine their coal - with lots of small coal mines, and endless rows of trucks transporting the coal to the cities for the coal plants and for heating in houses. It's done on an amazing scale and somehow it works for them.
Or just think about the potential of coal gasification - deep, inaccessible and even low-quality coal seams suddenly become very interesting. You just dig a deep hole, ignite the coal and use the hot gases to power a generator and there you go: electricity at low cost! Or turn it into liquid fuels. The possibilities for this are almost endless.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8184
http://www.kbr.com/newsroom/articles/features/unlocking-the-potential-of-low-rank-coal-reserves/
http://coal.decc.gov.uk/en/coal/cms/publications/mining/gasification/gasification.aspx
Note that fantastic story about Norway... 3 trillion tons of coal reserves...
I've tried to explain that in the last page. The 0.04% CO2 shares its energy with the other 99.96% of the atmosphere, allowing a lot of captured heat to be stored and allowing an efficient capture of heat.
You shouldn't get distracted by the low percentage... there are plenty of molecules of CO2 around to create an impenetrable "fog" around the earth. And those molecules are not on their own, they don't have to store all that heat by themselves.
That is why the CO2 in our atmosphere is thousands of times more effective than the CO2 in a low-pressure CO2 dominated atmosphere like on Mars (0.6% of the pressure of Earth's atmosphere).
Adding to the solution:
Perhaps we can also bring back small grocery shops, so that everyone can walk to buy his bread butter and milk, instead of having to drive there.
And perhaps we can also abandon use of so much concrete and go back to building brick buildings. Those are nicer to look at as well.
Is this a serious post?
Not as serious as my other solution but nobody takes that serious, so I think it may be helpful to focus on changing the smaller things.
The manufacture of concrete creates a lot of CO2 and we don't really need concrete because bricks are a proven and good alternative, so we can easily get rid of that source of CO2.
And walking creates less (extra) CO2 than using a car, and it's also more enjoyable, so yeah I think that's also a serious proposal.
Perhaps we could also reduce the use of fertilizer by crop-rotation. Or we could put some money into research to genetically enhance corn so that they'll have nitrogen-creating communities of microbes, like some crops do.
lol what's the problem with concrete?
We posted at the same time... I'll copy from my precious post: The manufacture of concrete creates a lot of CO2 and we don't really need concrete because bricks are a proven and good alternative, so we can easily get rid of that source of CO2.
Except maybe for the floors... but maybe even for those the concrete can be replaced, by sound-proof plastics (reinforced with an iron frame of course) for example.
nevermind my question was answered already lol, just i dod not refresh the page in time
Ok I'll just leave it at that
Again posting at the same time was the issue
I don't think concrete and bricks are that much of an issue..
Your two new suggestions screw poor people. You realize that, right? Mass market grocery stores make groceries significantly cheaper and concrete construction is much cheaper that old school brick and mortar, especially if the brick and mortar construction has to conform to modern building codes.
Both things will pass costs on to end consumers at the same rate regardless of the consumers income level. That hurts poor people hugely and rich people not at all (essentially).
Thought it worth pointing out, at least.
Yes....we can tell here who's NOT in the building industry...
While you're at it what say we stick with adobe....or just plain straw....afterall....the more straw used in construction the less there will be for cows to eat and thus we'll reduce methane production as well!
I think it's probably time to give up on this thread when you get to absurdities instead of sound reasoned argument.
Think back a few dozen pages to when you said you would bow out of the thread....that was timely....
Uhm... really? I couldn't tell. Poor people don't go to a big grocery store, it's too expensive. They go to the town market which is a lot cheaper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete
Need I say more?
But ok... almost everything is made of concrete nowadays. In the past every house was made of brick and/or wood.
As far as I know, houses were just as affordable in the past.
You know what happens when people have money left? The municiplaities ask more for the ground and for the infrastructure. In the end you end up paying just as much, only for different things.
True... so true... and so difficult.
Ecofriends must love this: North America to Drown in Oil as Mexico Ends Monopoly http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-16/north-america-to-drown-in-oil-as-mexico-ends-monopoly.html
You know....try not to wander into a debate about building construction....not with someone who has been an Architect for 40 years.
Drag out your wonderful 'Wiki' and research the origins of 'concrete'. It's older than you think.
Irrespective of any issues re CO2 production in concrete manufacture....check the equivalent with regards to coal and/or wood-fired BRICK kilns....and while you're at it look into the greenhouse issues of forest depletion [you know....where wood comes from].
Let's just say if you wish to continue this one-man crusade against CO2 you will need to go to school a little longer, OK? ....
Yes good point, the way bricks are made have to change, too. But that just requires heat, that can also come from electricity.
Otherwise we could as well dump aluminum manufacture too... that also requires a lot of energy... but that's built near hydro-electric plants which supply cheap energy, like in Norway.
Ok.
What's the problem with brick then (for normal houses)?
Or with steel construction (for appartment buildings)?
Is it absolutely necessary to create a house from concrete walls and floors?
If the price is higher for such a house, then the solution is obvious: the price of a plot of land has to go down.
For example in the Netherlands, the price of land has skyrocketed since people could afford it (because of the low interest) and municipalities thought it was a nice source of income. I am pretty sure that a reversal of this development is also possible.
But I get side-tracked, I'll try to think of other solutions.
Note that I do not offer a solution like more funding for public transport... that's so costly, we cannot afford that on a large scale.
We need better solutions.
Only in your mind.
Your Utopia is impossible to reach and really a waste of time.
Well... perhaps the only solution would be to have a power-source that is cheaper than coal, oil, gas.
Too bad that such a source of power does not exist, and it will not exists for a long time.
With technologies like coal gasification, people can probably continue our current way of life for hundreds more years and dump trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
You are not in the least concerned about that?
Well anyway, I think people are too spoiled by technology. Of course that's ok, but it does make people unrealistic. They expect that the current situation is normal and will last forever, but historically, we live in extraordinary times.
Am I right?
In Australia a Degree in Architecture takes around 5-6 years....after which you 'might' have a vague idea of the world of building construction.
In simple terms [saves you the course]....brick construction is less than 'ideal' in reactive soil [ignoring earth quake areas].
Both steel AND brick require heat in production....whatever source means carbon footprint is bad. Air-dried [adobe/mud brick] is poor for structural integrity without the use of steel and/or concrete/cement which defeats the purpose.
If you have ever seen liquifaction of the earth during an earthquake you will BEG for such things as steel-reinforced concrete.
Building construction costs have exactly zero effect on land prices. They are not related at all.
If you want land to be cheap...you either take it...by invading another country.... or you reduce its need..by culling your population.
Meanwhile..... if you wish this thread to become Theory of Architecture 1, or Materials and Structures 2e might I suggest you enrol in tertiary school.
Practical science is good for you. The theory of trolling Wikipedia for expertification [new word] is bunk.
Ok, so basically concrete is a much, MUCH stronger construction material than brick.
I did not know that, I yield.
Basically any solution will involve a drop in wealth.
It seems that most people don't want to give up on ... all the modern goods that we believe are invaluable.
But just 50 years ago, nobody had a mobile phone or a computer and the world was fine without it.
But to be honest I don't want to do without a computer. I think a world with computers is a better world.
But it does mean that we use a lot more energy than 50 years ago, to power those things.
It seems like we are all addicts and we cannot go back.
http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/03/12/world-energy-consumption-since-1820-in-charts/
Figure 2 is interesting in this regard. 200 years ago, most energy went into heating. Now we use 4x as much energy, and houses have better insulation too... it's all going into luxury like a car, a computer, a big house instead of a small house, etcetera.
But I don't want to go back to the days of 200 years ago, don't get me wrong!
They're free to ban whoever they want, but a ban on anyone who disagrees?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
