What Do We Think About Climate Change

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by Pericles, Feb 19, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    There are so many alternatives the question is hard to take seriously . Obviously the oil and gas industry would like us to believe we are dependent on oil and obviously other than in transportation we are not.

    Even in transportation there have been some completely viable options that can were scrapped for "mysterious" reasons

    Ive posted "who killed the electric car" numerous times and can only assume the documentary of the life and death of the electric car is simply being ignored

    fact is we had viable electric cars a long time ago but they got pulled off the market
     
  2. spearaddict
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 4
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 17
    Location: St. Pete/Palm Beach, FL

    spearaddict New Member

    ya, i saw that documentary, it was great. I always found it amazing that there was very little attention given to the fact that GM bought the controlling share of the leading battery producer, forced them to not advertise the batteries because GM would be the sole buyer of them, and then sold the controlling share of the company to Shell 2 years later. That seems like it is against the law in some form.
     
  3. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,804
    Likes: 369, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Really, you're an atheist? Who knew?:D :p :D :p :D :p :D :p :idea:
     
  4. spearaddict
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 4
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 17
    Location: St. Pete/Palm Beach, FL

    spearaddict New Member

    I know, its shocking isn't it!?
     
  5. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,804
    Likes: 369, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    And you wonder why Florida is sinking?
     
  6. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    The question is real easy to take seriously. There has always been a big variety of alternative energy sources. The problem has always been the cost. Solar currenty runs at 26-35 cents per kilowatt hour while the cheapest source, nuclear, is 3-5 cents per kilowatt hour. Wind power developed as mentioned would take up hundreds of thousands of acres of land and is the least reliable and has high maintenence requirements. For private homes it currently costs about $800.00 to install a solar unit capable of running a single 100w incandenscent bulb. Coal, oil, and natural gas are just above nuclear in cost.

    The issue of the oil and gas companies strangling at birth alternative energy is a myth. Please post the list of patents bought up if you care to argue this nonsense. There will always be a need and a market for oil and gas whether it is for energy production, transportation or manufacturing. But wasting fossil fuels on producing electricity is foolish. Nuclear is a much less expensive alternative and offers the best hope for the future for cheap energy to power and expanding economy. Using nuclear we can remove homes from the oil heat market and stop burning coal, oil and gas to generate electricity. This is a much better investment of our energy dollars than attempting to use wind, tide, and solar as anything else than a supplemental source of power.

    Removing the billions of gallons of oil from the energy production market would insure a supply of petroleum for thousands of years and reduce the real health threats of HC, CO, and NOX gases as opposed to the phoney issue of C02.

    I use PV cells for battery maintenence for my camper and boats but they have little value for real power needs. The electric companies buy back power from the expensive PV cell equipped homes because they have to and not because it is a source of cheap power.

    Unless we want to bankrupt our economy by pursuing the myth of alternative energy sources our only option is to convert our energy and power production over to nuclear as quickly as possible.
     
  7. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    I've kinda been on the fence about nuclear for a while but it seems that there isnt enought of a net reduction in co2 emissions from a nuclear plant if you consider manufacture and decommissioning to offset the dangers or costs

    first the taxpayers are asked to subsidize the plant
    and those rat ******** are stealing enough of my money without asking me to fund there business venture
    then you need to dig up the fuel and that cost lots of oil
    then you need to transport the fuel and that costs lots of oil
    then you need to refine the fuel and that cost lots of oil
    then you build a mountain of steal and concrete to contain the reactor and that costs even more oil
    then you get to fight with where to store this waste and that costs lots of money

    then you get what 20 or 30 years before you have to dismantle the thing before it degrades from the radiation and springs a leak

    so now you need robots to take the thing apart cause humans cant handle the radiation levels
    then you need to pachage the stuff in what
    more concrete ( produces co2 )
    then you haul the stuff away which costs more oil
    then you need to dig a whole which costs even more oil
    then you need to bury and monitor the site for how long?

    and how many nuclear power plants have ever been decommissioned and what does it cost
    thats right
    no body knows because the utilities dont want to foot the bill
    so they just keep redefining what safe operating parameters are and keep on bringing in the almighty buck
    until what

    so the cost of building fueling maintaining and decommissioning is actually unknown until you complete a cycle isnt it

    other than Chernobyl exploding what nuclear power reactor has ever been dismantled and carted off for disposal
    and what did it cost

    show me a cost and environmental analysis of this process and I will reconsider but thus far fission is a bad plan as far as I can tell



    this one's a four part series but Ill just post the first one

     
  8. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member


    I'll post it again. The chart is the NASA/GISS adjusted aggregate of all stations in and around Fairbanks, AK, and it ends in 2000, just as I stated.

    Jimbo

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    ok
    since we are re-posting stuff

    I had thought you were referring the the one of the graphs I had posted rather than one you had posted
    you might have mentioned a post # rather than just a graph reference number cause when you said Fairbanks data I thought you were referring to the Fairbanks station graph I had just posted

    but I would be interested in why you are so insistent on leaving off the last ten years data in all the graphs you are presenting
    I realize the last ten years bear particularly grim news but still we must face the reality of our situation, dont you think ?
     
  10. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    it might be important to rather than get into a cherry picking charts game for local weather variations that may or may not support certain claims it might be more accurate when talking about Rapid Global Climate Change to look at the global charts

    this from the Hadley series
    NASA/GISS

    Godard institute of space studies
    found at
    http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Fig.A2-500.jpg&imgrefurl=http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/08/24/hotting-up/&usg=__-If3YgOoiKzy1ZYPEKTQboJ6zhk=&h=363&w=500&sz=38&hl=en&start=14&sig2=NLz7HBeaGV1vsJF52e7e2Q&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=QS1VumyjNq5PmM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3DNASA/GISS%2Bgraphs%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=rniPS-yeOZDqtgO8z7izCA


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    this next shows volcanic eruptions marked in green

    [​IMG]

    Ill include the caption since it does mention one of our faves
    the interesting thing to note is that on a global scale there is no doubt that the average temp is rising
    at least the data is sufficient to convince 97% of climate scientists which is a whopping consensus in anybodies book

    cheers
    B
     
  11. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    Boston again gets it all wrong. The 3-5 cents per kw includes construction and decommissioning. Connecticut Yankee in Haddam was the first commericial unit brought online, was in service almost 40 years and has been successfully decommissioned. The waste storage is a political issue not one of logistics or saftey. None of the alternative energy scenarios can support our current kw load or any growth without a 1000% cost increase to the consumer. This would cripple our economy. France is able to generate 80% of its electricity via nuclear and we all know the French don't do anything right.

    Several weeks ago 6 people were killed in a gas explosion at a plant under construction in nearby Middletown Connecticut. That is six more people than have ever died from radiation poisoning at an American nuclear power plant.

    Construction of any sort requires a fuel output. The cost of per kw to construct a nuclear plant is minisclule compared to the cost of constructing a conga line of windmill monstrosities from Texas to Canada. The amount of toxic crap needed to provide 1% of power via PV cells would fill Yankee stadium several times.

    Marginal power needs would best be filled by investing HTE hydrogen technology. Geothermal can work in certain areas as long as you can convince the local green folks to let you dig a big whomping hole in the ground.

    Referencing Caldicott is pretty funny. Hardly an objective voice on anything nuclear. She won't be happy until the human race commits mass suicide or goes back to living in caves. Reminds me of another philosophical wack job I know of.

    None of the alternative schemes mentioned will have anything but a conversation piece impact on urban areas, and they will all be much more expensive.
     
  12. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

  13. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    PV cell technology is severely limited in actual potential. Cover your entire roof with panels and you won't produce enough sustainable power to cook a burger on an electric hot plate. It does have its uses as supplemental power. It works for specially designed and very expensive water heating systems. It will maintain battery charge and help replenish batteries, power a radio or a laptop for limited periods. If you want to watch Oprah on the big screen TV, while your iron a shirt, when the dryer is running in the basement, solar power isn't going to do the job for you. Home windmills are cute and trendy, but have the same obvious limits as solar, plus you wouldn't want to hear the noise in a subdivision if every home was equipped with one. Some farmers in Eastern Connecticut use the windmills to charge up the batteries for their water troughs to keep the ice from forming. They are nice for marinas to power battery maintainers up and down the dock. They will not take care of the energy needs 24/7 for a house unless a huge investment is made in storage batteries. Solar and Wind are simply not feasable for primary power. Keep in mind also the transmission cost of electricity, the longer you run the lines, the more it costs. That windmill corridor electricity is going to cost a bundle to reach the East Coast. Of course you deface the eastern shoreline by putting up a couple hundred thousand of them to cut down the transmission costs. Yea, get that by the greens. The key to the success of all the green alternatives is to cut down demand and change lifestyles. If there were a real need for it the greens might have a valid agenda. All they really have now is alarmism, myopia, and an elitist desire to mind every one elses business.
     
  14. spearaddict
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 4
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 17
    Location: St. Pete/Palm Beach, FL

    spearaddict New Member

    3-5 cents per kwh is not the cost of construction. If it were, why is my power company charging my $3 more a month for the future plans to build a nuclear power plant? They havn't even planned it out yet, but asked Florida if they could impose a $3 fee on everyone so that they might be able to make enough money to build it. The answer is cold fusion. If we spent the same amount of money that we do in Iraq every week on cold fusion, we would already have working reactors all over the country. Cold fusion reactors only need water, are much safer, and much more efficient that hot fusion and nuclear fission, not too mention thousands of times better than fossil fuels.
    If solar isn't good enough for power, then how come they started building the first 100% solar powered city here in Florida? If you look at all technologies, they started out way to expensive and inefficient. It requires investment into them to get them to be efficient. But hey, if you want to keep funding Al Qaeda through oil, be my guest.
     

  15. Hisflyingtune
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 8
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    Hisflyingtune Hisflyingtunesmith

    Blab

    My micro-climate is getting warmer from all of the blab. No. Seriously, I weary of all of the unsubstantiated and pseudo-authoritative assertions. I'm not interested in winning an argument. I'm interested in finding out the truth, the facts or whatever

    I simply wish that ALL sides what admit to what they do not know. Then, better questions can be formulated to try to discover what we think that we need to know but do not know.

    Fair enough?
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. rasorinc
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    2,450
  2. El_Guero
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,193
  3. troy2000
    Replies:
    168
    Views:
    12,155
  4. gonzo
    Replies:
    675
    Views:
    44,785
  5. gonzo
    Replies:
    587
    Views:
    47,654
  6. Grant Nelson
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    3,397
  7. Boston
    Replies:
    162
    Views:
    12,678
  8. Boston
    Replies:
    4,617
    Views:
    318,713
  9. hmattos
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,504
  10. brian eiland
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,410
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.