HawthorneVillager.com

I'll try to be more clear;

Generated Electrical Power is never intentionally wasted. It is generated on-demand by pool of power plants at our disposal. There is inherent waste due to inefficiency in the transmission, and usage of said electricity; But you can't simply 'throw' away extra electrical power. If you exceed load demand, you risk an overload and grid failure.

You're right to argue that nuclear plants are left ON because the shutdown/restart-up cycle is complex, costly and time consuming (compared to a natural-gas plant).

But if you're arguing that they alone (maybe coupled with hydro plants?) generate enough electricity to meet or even exceed our base-load targets on a Saturday/Sunday night and can somehow waste excess electrical power, you're simply mistaken. I could go into details of why that's impossible but instead look at some actual data pulled from IESO's website (Our grid operator) 2 hours ago:

http://www.ieso.ca

Total demand (Sunday, March 24, 9PM) was 17,112 MW.

Power generated by plant type:

• Nuclear: 9302 MW ~ 54%
• Hydro: 4486 MW ~ 26%
• Gas: 2319MW ~ 14%
• Coal: 380MW ~ 2 %
• Wind: 650MW ~ 3.5%
• Other: 117MW ~ 0.5%

You know what it was yesterday? Not much different.

By the way, Ontario's actual supply base, and its theoretical peek output (sorted by plant type) can be found on this page:

http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/media/md_supply.asp

Its a good read if you're interested.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread, I said my piece. We're speeding towards an environmental train-wreck, and are doing next to nothing about it.

Edit [March 25, 8AM]: One additional clarification on excess supply / corrections.

Actually just the opposite. People need time to adapt and create better,cleaner,safer technologies.

Example:
wood-->coal-->oil-->natural gas-->god knows



Really, I thought scientist were coming out of retirement to disprove several man made global warming assertions. Why retired? Because many working scientists risked their careers if they spoke out against the global warming orthodoxy for ideological and financial reasons. Climategate e-mails demonstrate this. I think the situation has been improving since the height of global warming hysteria.



You are a panicked fanatic. Probably because:



I sugest you start reading some different articles and watching different videos.

Here is one on Human Achievement Hour:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/feat ... 5844694001



There is no better way to convince people of you point of view than alienating them.


The best thing to do during any upcoming earth hour is help you kids with their math and science homework, because there is a small chance they will help develop the new energy technology, directly or indirectly.

Tom

PS
I dislike real pollution as much as the next guy or gal, but carbon dioxide is not pollution.

_________________
Jezu Ufam Tobie

Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Non draco sit mihi dux!

Ok, I guess I better start here and set it straight:


After hvoriginal posted his reply I did realize that the audience on this forum is more mature than what I'm used to (compared to some of the other forums I visit).

Reflecting back, If I walked away from my draft before posting it I would have probably tamed the style a bit. Still, I am passionate about the subject and at least that much is reflected in the original post - blunt as it is. I wont take it back, but in the future I'll keep it down.

The problem I have with that statement is that we may not have enough time to adopt. My fear is that by the time we do, the damage we've done will be terminal.

Its very difficult to visualize the real human impact on the environment here in Canada. Our Environmental laws and policies are actually top-notch (compared to the rest of the world) - one of the reasons why I'm still a proud Canadian. But if you take the time to look beyond our borders, you'll quickly come to the same realization which dawned on me when I visited a few developing countries -- It's unsustainable.


"Global warming" is really a misnomer -- I remember watching an interviewer a few years ago (forgot which show) who asked random Canadians about their thoughts on the subject, one of the answers that still stands out in my mind is "I'd love some!".

A more apt name for it is "Climate change". Most of the debates I've seen don't argue whether the classic weather norms are changing, instead they rage over whether it's a naturally occurring cyclic phenomenon or one of our own making. I'll watch your video though - after I'm done with this.

So, in an effort to finally put this matter to sleep, a few years ago a team of renowned, still working, Scientists (one of which is a noble prize winner) were commissioned to investigate this problem. The team collected all the known data on the subject and performed their own meta study... By the way, the primary spokesman is a Physics Prof. Richard Muller; a previously known skeptic of 'Global Warming' and a great dude over all (highly recommend his Physics for Future Presidents lectures available on youtube or the University's website).

Anyway, last year they finally announced their findings; 'Not only is global warming is real, humans are almost entirely the cause' is the famous statement.

The actual study is independent, and fully transparent. All of their data, and methods are open to the public. The main portal can be found here:

http://berkeleyearth.org/

Go through it and try to debunk it if you have the credentials ( Hopefully some of those retired scientists you're talking about will atleast try).

If you have 20 minutes to spare, this is a decent interview with the Professor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqPuKxXUCPY

Of course much more can be found on the subject via: Google.


Why not? Because its considered non toxic? Neither is Freon (aka CFC).

Beside that fact it can kill you if it makes up 7~10% of the air volume you breathe, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a known greenhouse gas and its increase in the atmosphere correlates to the raise in surface temperatures discuses in the study I posted.

Yes, the planet has natural mechanisms of balancing CO2 levels but we're eagerly destroying them in the name of profit and growth while at the same time saturating the atmosphere with even more CO2 -- at an almost exponential increase year over year, if I may add.

If we continue at this rate, a critical concentration will be reached which will topple the balance and a runaway greenhouse will ensue (Hello Venus 2.0) - One of the worst possible doomsday scenario's currently on the table.

I know! The nerve of those ingrates in developing countries. I can't believe they won't just shut up and be happy in their mud huts while we preach at them from our 2500 sqft homes with 2 cars in the driveway, while watching an AlGore documentary on tv and posting about it on our iPads as we look forward to a nice glass of Chardonnay chilling in the 25cuft refrigerator. They really are too much!



Oh, well, if some guy from Berkeley says its true then that just ends all debate.

I will just posit that you are making the same mistake that many alarmists (not just global warming alarmists) make. You fail to account for the exponential / logarithmic progress of human ingenuity. Said differently, you can only imagine solutions as seen through the lens of current knowledge. Recommended reading: Kurzwiel.

Its not just some guy. Its a team of 14 prominent scientists / experts. Here's the full list [link].

Ones that stand out to me are David Brillinger - a Canadian and Saul Perlmutter recent Nobel prize winner in astrophysics.

These people are staking their active careers on these findings; don't dimiss it without atleast checking it out first.



I'm not implying they should be denied development - I'm stating that its unsustainable at current rates / trends.



That doesn't make sense. I understand human ingenuity, and I haven't even pitched any possible solutions.

Our knowledge on the problem is still limited at this point, and I'm trying to point out that its advancement is being hindered by denial that said problem even exists.

It makes total sense. Let me elaborate on what I think MiltonLeo is trying to say. Human beings are innovative. When global warming, or climate change, becomes a problem that is noticeable and needs rectification, humanity will prevail with an innovative solution to the problem. It's just not serious enough to be on any one's radar at the moment. And thanks to capitalism, it'll probably be expensive and profitable for whoever/which company figures it out.

Onward and upward. Time to go fill up the tank on the V8.

Long story short:

Computer global warming models have been greatly exaggerated by the scientists who created them. How do I know this?
I know this because actual measured temperature has risen much less over the last 5 to 10 years then the models predicted at the time.
This means, assuming that man made global warming exists, that instead of having 100 years to solve the problem we have more like 400 years.



My use of the phrase "man made global warming" was extremely deliberate. If not "man made" than what? If not "warming" then what?
The phrase "climate change" is an insurance policy for you guys in case your "man made warming" claims prove to be wrong in the future.
That would be embarrassing. If however "climate change" is used, that can be, and will be argued to mean many things.
If you are going to scream that the world is ending, proposing radical changes to the way we live, then you must be held accountable if you are wrong.

Tom

_________________
Jezu Ufam Tobie

Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Non draco sit mihi dux!

For every credible source you find proving GW, I can find a credible source debunking it. That’s the problem with GW – while almost everyone agrees it’s happening, nobody agrees on how bad it will be, or what the consequences of it will be. It’s now become a political issue, which means the issue is also being manipulated to help people achieve their agendas.

If you really want to form an opinion on this, it’s important to read sources you disagree with. Both sides have some compelling arguments.

Due to the political nature of GW, I’m at the point where I ignore ALL of it. There’s to much BS to tell truth from fiction, and it’s such a complicated topic that even the best informed source’s have a high probability of being totally wrong. For example, 30 years ago, the best minds were predicting global cooling.

My take on this is that even if true, and GW is a disaster in the making, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Man kind can’t even regulate the fishing industry in international waters to prevent overfishing and population collapses. To think that regulating global emissions is even remotely possible is a pipe dream. Some countries may do the right thing, but those gains will be completely wiped out by others that don’t. At the end of the day, I guarantee you that as a species, man will burn every last drop of fossil fuels on the planet. Unless we’re willing to go to war to prevent drilling for gas and oil, it’s going to happen.

My other take on it is that everything you see governments doing – windmills, green energy plans etc, is total BS to get votes from a gullible population. The day I believe governments are taking this seriously, is the day they announce an end to immigration and pro-population growth policies, and rejig government programs/spending to work around a model that doesn’t require population growth to sustain itself. The reason for this is that despite all our efforts to become more efficient, and reduce our per-capita emissions of CO2, those gains are totally wiped out by population growth, resulting in net-increases in emissions. If we reduce our emissions by 5% per person, but increase our numbers by 10%, we still have a 5% increase in emissions.

You cannot tackle this problem while increasing the number of emitters. It’s absolutely impossible. So if you really care about GW, then vote for the most racist, anti-immigrant party you can find. They have the solution to the problem.

Given that GW is inevitable (assuming it’s true in the first place), our resources are far better spent adapting to it. Move our farms, wall our costal cities, move them if needed. Those costs are substantial, but far cheaper than hobbling growth with gimmicky policies in a futile attempt to fix a problem you can’t control anyways – and then STILL having to deal with the problem. At the same time, there are some benefits to realize. Canada and Russia will see increased crop yields, a greening of the frozen wasteland that they are now, and much richer bio-diversity.

Who cares about global warming. Polar bears are rubbish anyway.

You're comparing an instant disaster to a problem that is slowly growing (will take 100+ years to be a problem even worth considering fixing).

You're right it's a fallacy. Why would humans want to live? They'd probably rather die when the planet goes kapoot.

Here is a nice discussion point on the possible future of energy and energy production with Michio Kaku - one of the smarter folks you might run in to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvsFWUo2iIw

_________________

Yes, exactly right re. what I meant by innovation. Thank you Sandeep.

And furthermore, my point was that spirytus is making the classic mistake of imagining only those solutions that can be seen through the lens of current human knowledge. Hence the alarmist cries for humans to adapt, cries that the damage will be terminal, etc, etc. When of course that's not true, especially if you account for future innovations that aren't currently known.

It's natural to think that the way things are today is the way things will always be. But actually nothing could be further from the truth. Who could have imagined that we'd be flying to all corners of the world on airplanes several centuries ago .. the industrial revolution hadn't happened, physics was not well understood, etc. Until those things became common human knowledge and a backbone of society, no one would have thought those things were possible. They were beyond the realm of serious imagination. Who could have imagined the internet, and satellites, and global communication even a century and a half ago (before the invention of transistors etc)? Similarly, the medical advances of late. We've mapped the human genome, unthinkable even 40 years ago.

In the coming years there will be more and more advances that will make solutions that we can't even conceive of today not only possible, but relatively easy and inexpensive. This is Kurzwiel's point. Nanotechnology is one thing that may predicate such changes. Think of future advances in AI, etc. The rise of the machines, lol.

But current alarmists make the classic mistake of humans through the ages. They fail to account for exponential leaps in learning and progress that will only be enabled after future (and currently unknown) advances.

They think that time will stand still and, even more frighteningly, they think that it should stand still.

Thank god that there weren't any global warming alarmists around during the cavemen days. We'd still be in our caves today, sharpening our primitive tools, getting ready for the hunt and trying to keep the fire going, and picking the lice out our hair, all the while remarking on the exact same landscapes and continental vistas we inhabit today anyway, while congratulating ourselves on the fact that this continental drift thing might have been so much worse if we hadn't stopped our earth-harming industrial and agricultural progress.

Well, the earth did change, the climates warmed and cooled, mountains popped up, islands were buried, and humans prospered! Why people now think we should have a lock on the exact coastal landscapes and the exact micro-climates of the 20th century forever more, and at the expense of human progress and comfort, is beyond my personal understanding.

I think bremer hit the nail on the head re. the politics of global warming. Certainly it's being exploited by some for power and money. But there are also a lot of useful enablers, those who've bought into the 'religion of mother earth' above all else, that let them get away with it.

If anybody wants to read up on exciting new technologies (solar panels as so 1970s) - good music however, do a search on these energy production/storage technologies in development:

Thorium reactor - fission reactor utilizing Thorium. Can be made small, no safety systems necessary as it cannot sustain a chain reaction, abundant fuel, spent fuel radioactive for billions of years but at an almost insignificant level - as long as you don't eat it on purpose.

Polywell reactor - fusion reactor being developed by US Navy. Its very small and very simple compared to that massive, expensive fusion swine to be built in Europe. The fuel could either be Deuterium (1 million year supply in the oceans, neutron radiation only during the fusion reaction) or Boron 11 (byproduct of the nuclear industry, not sure about supply, alpha particles only).

Laser based fusion - not the simplest design. Deuterium, or Deuterium - Tritium fuel, cant remember. Neutron radiation during the reaction only.

Ultra capacitor - energy storage device

Matter / antimatter reactor - not yet


I just scratched the surface here, there are many experimental technologies in development.
Many more to be invented.

Tom

_________________
Jezu Ufam Tobie

Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Non draco sit mihi dux!

Yes, fusion is the future by the sounds of it. Also scraping the battery as we know it and reinventing it will come eventually too that will re-reinvent the electric car..but all this is ways away.

Looks like our kids will have to deal with more change than we will. We'll just get to sit back and carry on as we are till the cavalry arrives in a few decades to wipe out our contriubtion, cause no one is going to stop this ship we're currently steering

_________________

guys don't worry - Global Warming is good for Milton! When the bottom half of America is a Sahara wasteland, everyone will want to live in Southern Ontario! We will of course be invaded by the US for all our natural resources, but think of our property values! DaBills great grandson will be crying in his beer with his $65,000 per month rent bill!