Mesabah

It won't work.
Say you have a city with 1000 MegaWatts of power requirement. You build wind, and solar farms to supply that power, however, you still need an 80% base load power generator. Since the infrastructure to maintain alternative energy is so high, the cost of nuclear for the base load is completely out of the question. That leaves conventional power generation as the only option. So to power your city on green energy, you need 1000 MW of green power, and 800 MW of "dirty" power. The global warming footprint of that city is astronomically higher, than just a simple 1000 MW natural gas plant.

The only solution is for the government to invest trillions in advanced nuclear power. The left would never allow that, because they would lose their political position. In fact, that's exactly why Carter banned it.

Flytolive

Nothing like the absurd absolutist defeatist argument.


More BS. We use an all the above approach and use the fuels that are best-suited and 'cleanest' for the job. We are a long long way from electric airplanes, but not cars. Efficiency is the biggest bang for the buck, but unfortunately the current administration is gutting those initiatives.

It is clear that you are in search of fake facts to support your political leanings. You literally cannot make a post without blaming the left. If only the right-wing deniers had been in charge, right? Sorry, that dog don't hunt.

Mesabah

Yes, the Obama admin gave Solyndra hundreds of millions to produce next generation solar panels, which all wound up in a land fill when the company went Tango Uniform. Next up to go out is Tesla motors, which has never produced a profit. They haven't even been around long enough to offset their production carbon footprint. Green energy makes things worse, because it isn't cost effective enough to create benefits. The poor can't afford it anyway, and the left is hell bent on importing people from low per capita carbon footprint countries to high ones, for votes I guess.

Flytolive

Put down the idiotic talking points and do some minimal research on almost every major innovation in history including oil production and how it was originally subsidized. Hell, ever heard of the internet? While you are at it check out how many car companies especially overseas are now making electric cars and solar panels.

At least we now know why you make so many erroneous assertions about what is causing climate change.

Fdxlag2

Me too. I do note you don’t object to non climate science background if they agree with you. It is only when they disagree with you that it becomes an issue.

madmax757

Someone in an earlier post stated that electric airplanes are a way off. NASA is developing and testing them now. Here is a news piece of the not so distant future I found. Also almost every issue of Aviation Week has Electric propulsion update. From what I read and research there will be hybrid electric regional aircraft within 10 years.

Also some of the first cars were electric - early 1900s. But battery technology and charging were the challenge and the ICE won out.

Just my 2 cents.


https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Th...491053031.html

Mesabah

Due to the extra weight of the batteries, there is no way an electric aircraft could be competitive commercially.

madmax757

It all depends on storage / energy capacity of the battery. They keep getting better and better. Also these are hyBrid regional aircraft. Not 737 or bigger yet.

I guess we will see. Boeing and JetBlue are backing this company.
I just find it pretty fascinating and I follow it. Do you have any resources that say otherwise or just your opinion?

https://www.businessinsider.com/jetb...c-plane-2018-5

MaxQ

I understand the emotional resistance to acknowledging human activity as being a major driving force in global warming. At some point one must get past that, man up, and face reality.

Carbon molecules prevent some of the radiation of the planet (absorbed from the sun) from escaping. This is a simple and well known fact. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, vast quantities have been added to the atmosphere that is beyond what would be occurring naturally. It has exploded in amount since WW11. Basic thermodynamics require the planet to increase in temperature. Period.
Everything else is details. All the feedbacks, resultant forcings, etc. are just attempts to make things more accurate. They often are open to dispute, misinterpretation of data, and a million other factors. NONE of which can, or will, change the basic narrative....which is: Humans have been adding massive amounts of carbon molecules to the atmosphere, particularly in the last 70 years (sometimes called The Great Acceleration).
Carbon molecules trap heat.
This trapped heat requires the earth to warm.
Attempts to try to deny this basic narrative tend to be mostly lawyer/high school debate cleverness and bull****.

We as a species can either take collective action to try and lessen the carbon (and methane, etc) we add to the atmosphere, or, we can let Nature take its course in a manner that eventually lessens our output in Her time honored way of dealing with populations that indulge in ecological overshoot.

If we choose to take drastic steps ourselves to slow and eventually limit global warming, it would involve a great deal of material hardship for everyone. There are no magic elixirs that allow our current advanced industrial standard of living with the reduced energy output required to keep Earth's climate somewhat close to what She has had for the last 10,000 or so years. This is pablum that people who try to sell the idea that we can eat our cake and have it too should stop selling.
It would require material sacrifice.
Which is precisely why I doubt that mankind will do it.

Instead I think the more likely way will be Nature's. How it will play out can take an almost infinite number of paths. None of them are good.( my bet would be on nuclear war as things deteriorate)
It may even be that higher intelligence proves to be an evolutionary dead end.

Now with that bit of good cheer, everyone have a nice day!

Mesabah

Due to the weight scope restrictions they would have to be flown at mainline. Even something that is 10% heavier, won’t work. They will likely only be a niche aircraft for greenies.