• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reducing US Carbon Emissions to Zero Will Not Alter the Problem

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The Green New Deal acts as if the most important priority is making America more efficient, but this is wrong.

Pushing the US economy to zero emissions won't fundamentally alter the problem because--and this is important--if we stop using fossil fuels, they actually get cheaper for everyone else, making developing countries more likely to develop in carbon-intensive ways.
Click to expand...

The US is already responsible for less than one third of carbon emissions. US reductions in emissions have been more than overtaken by increases by other countries.

This is not an excuse for the US to do nothing. We must continue efforts to get away from carbon fuels if for no other reason than carbon fuels are a limited resource. Also, technologies we develop may be applicable in other parts of the world.

Megan McArdle on Twitter: "Pushing the US economy to zero emissions won't
 
LowDown said:
The US is already responsible for less than one third of carbon emissions. US reductions in emissions have been more than overtaken by increases by other countries.

This is not an excuse for the US to do nothing. We must continue efforts to get away from carbon fuels if for no other reason than carbon fuels are a limited resource. Also, technologies we develop may be applicable in other parts of the world.

Megan McArdle on Twitter: "Pushing the US economy to zero emissions won't
Click to expand...
Good point! The only way we can really reduce global CO2 emissions, is to develop a technology that provides the same or better
functionality as we get from hydrocarbon fuels, but is naturally lower in cost that finding, extracting and refining oil.
If we do this, we would not be able to stop people from buying even if we wanted to.
We then license the technology to the rest of the world and make a fortune!
 
longview said:
Good point! The only way we can really reduce global CO2 emissions, is to develop a technology that provides the same or better
functionality as we get from hydrocarbon fuels, but is naturally lower in cost that finding, extracting and refining oil.
If we do this, we would not be able to stop people from buying even if we wanted to.
We then license the technology to the rest of the world and make a fortune!
Click to expand...

Great idea. Any chance there is anybody out there who would like to help me do that? Share in the vast profits etc?
 
LowDown said:
Reducing US Carbon Emissions to Zero Will Not Alter the Problem
Click to expand...
There isn't a problem

LowDown said:
The US is already responsible for less than one third of carbon emissions.
Click to expand...
It's carbon dioxide not carbon. Please stop allowing the Climate Cult to define the language.

LowDown said:
US reductions in emissions have been more than overtaken by increases by other countries.
Click to expand...
And we have shuttered factories to prove it.

LowDown said:
This is not an excuse for the US to do nothing. We must continue efforts to get away from carbon fuels...
Click to expand...
Dead last on my to do list.

LowDown said:
if for no other reason than carbon fuels are a limited resource.
Click to expand...
Yes, some day other technologies will be more economical than fossil fuels. However that's quite a long way off.

LowDown said:
Also, technologies we develop may be applicable in other parts of the world.
Click to expand...
Uh huh lets give away our technology so more people in the United States will become unemployed.

LowDown said:
Megan McArdle on Twitter: "Pushing the US economy to zero emissions won't
Click to expand...
Posting on Twitter is like hitting the tar baby.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Great idea. Any chance there is anybody out there who would like to help me do that? Share in the vast profits etc?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I think it will be the big players with the established infrastructure, that would benefit the most from such a change.
For your part, a better wind turbine, which performs under most wind conditions would be a great step in the right direction.
 
Won't solve the problem...so let's do nothing and see what happens. After all it's our normal way of operating. I don't have kids so they can never point their fingers at me and say, dad did you vote to keep things the same and poison our air and water?
 
bongsaway said:
Won't solve the problem...so let's do nothing and see what happens. After all it's our normal way of operating. I don't have kids so they can never point their fingers at me and say, dad did you vote to keep things the same and poison our air and water?
Click to expand...
Who says we are doing nothing? US CO2 Emissions have been dropping since 2005.
• CO2 emissions United States 2017 | Statistic
Also weather CO2 is a pollutant is very subjective, It does appear to cause some minor warming,
but it is questionable if that is a bad thing.
A home built after 2005, likely uses half of the energy of a home built in the 1980's.
Cars get much better mileage, Led lights light our homes with much fewer Kwh of electricity,
Appliances have all improved in efficiency.
 
longview said:
Who says we are doing nothing? US CO2 Emissions have been dropping since 2005.
• CO2 emissions United States 2017 | Statistic
Also weather CO2 is a pollutant is very subjective, It does appear to cause some minor warming,
but it is questionable if that is a bad thing.
A home built after 2005, likely uses half of the energy of a home built in the 1980's.
Cars get much better mileage, Led lights light our homes with much fewer Kwh of electricity,
Appliances have all improved in efficiency.
Click to expand...

What I was implying is there are a large group of folks whose idea is to do nothing because they believe there is no climate change or danger from pollution.
 
LowDown said:
The US is already responsible for less than one third of carbon emissions. US reductions in emissions have been more than overtaken by increases by other countries.

This is not an excuse for the US to do nothing. We must continue efforts to get away from carbon fuels if for no other reason than carbon fuels are a limited resource. Also, technologies we develop may be applicable in other parts of the world.

Megan McArdle on Twitter: "Pushing the US economy to zero emissions won't
Click to expand...

Global warming quackery is driving leftists mad. What will people do when airplanes and cars are banned by leftist democrat government mandates? There may be nothing stupider than the New Leftist Green Commie Energy total nonsense.
 
bongsaway said:
What I was implying is there are a large group of folks whose idea is to do nothing because they believe there is no climate change or danger from pollution.
Click to expand...
And they might be correct! as I have pointed out, market forces have reduced US CO2 emissions without any major changes in regulations.
People like saving money, and will do so when the replacement product fills the same roll or is an improvement, with great relish.
Our population moved from tube TVs to flat screens almost completely in 20 years, why the flat screens are better, and now cheaper.
People have improved the efficiencies of their older homes, not necessary to reduce emissions, but to save themselves money.
The climate changes no matter what Humans do, some of that change is related to the portion of CO2 emissions Humans cause.
What is subjective is if we have it within our power to alter the direction of natural climate change.
The bigger moral question is should we even try!
There is nothing cast in stone that says the climate we have lived through is the perfect climate,
and the a warmer planet would not be better.
Humanity has some very real problems in the future, mostly energy, and fresh water, CO2 is much further down the list.
Naturally occurring hydrocarbon fuels, will not solve our energy problem, or at least not for long.
For everyone on the planet to live a first world lifestyle, if they choose, will require something much more sustainable
and scale able.
 
longview said:
Unfortunately, I think it will be the big players with the established infrastructure, that would benefit the most from such a change.
For your part, a better wind turbine, which performs under most wind conditions would be a great step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Working on it.

The focus at the moment is to build a shipping container sized on which would stand on a 2m high shed, sticking upright, and should get 6kW in any wind over about 8m/s. So a good location on a hill or something. No trouble with faster winds untill the thing is ripped of the hill.

Going very slowly as I need a budget and once I have done it a business plan. Help!!
 
bongsaway said:
What I was implying is there are a large group of folks whose idea is to do nothing because they believe there is no climate change or danger from pollution.
Click to expand...

I expect that I am in the group you consider to be so.

Polution is a massive issue. CO2 is not at all a problem. Nor will it be for at least the next few centuries. A slightly warmer world is a better world.
 
bongsaway said:
What I was implying is there are a large group of folks whose idea is to do nothing because they believe there is no climate change or danger from pollution.
Click to expand...

I think if you were to stop listening to the "climate cult," and listen to what we all say, I don't think there is a single one among use on the side not worried about CO2, who at the same time wants to see pollution eliminated.

I for one do not see CO2 as a threat. I see it as a net benefit to society. I do however want to do all we can to stop polluting our environment. I primarily argue against aerosols we put in the air.
 
bongsaway said:
What I was implying is there are a large group of folks whose idea is to do nothing because they believe there is no climate change or danger from pollution.
Click to expand...

We have been at the forefront of developing cleaner and cleaner technologies that we deploy for new builds. Part of the problem is the big polluters are not deploying them.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Working on it.

The focus at the moment is to build a shipping container sized on which would stand on a 2m high shed, sticking upright, and should get 6kW in any wind over about 8m/s. So a good location on a hill or something. No trouble with faster winds untill the thing is ripped of the hill.

Going very slowly as I need a budget and once I have done it a business plan. Help!!
Click to expand...

I’m actually a industrial electrician. I have built power plants. Mostly combine cycles. But I would be very interested to see what you have so far. I maybe able to add a little to your design. Can you imagine a sparky and pipe fitter changing the world. Lol FYI 6kw at 120 volts is only 50 amps. Most homes run on 200 amp services. Of course they don’t use 200 amps all the time. But must a/c units use at least 30amps for a small unit and up to 80amps for a big unit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
Working on it.

The focus at the moment is to build a shipping container sized on which would stand on a 2m high shed, sticking upright, and should get 6kW in any wind over about 8m/s. So a good location on a hill or something. No trouble with faster winds untill the thing is ripped of the hill.

Going very slowly as I need a budget and once I have done it a business plan. Help!!
Click to expand...

I did just notice your in Australia where they use 240 volts at 50 herts. Which means a 6kw generator would only produce 25 amps. But those amp would be more effective. I’m not sure what the house services use or the appliances use in this voltage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Babykat said:
I did just notice your in Australia where they use 240 volts at 50 herts. Which means a 6kw generator would only produce 25 amps. But those amp would be more effective. I’m not sure what the house services use or the appliances use in this voltage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That is the same for the UK, where I am.
 
Babykat said:
I’m actually a industrial electrician. I have built power plants. Mostly combine cycles. But I would be very interested to see what you have so far. I maybe able to add a little to your design. Can you imagine a sparky and pipe fitter changing the world. Lol FYI 6kw at 120 volts is only 50 amps. Most homes run on 200 amp services. Of course they don’t use 200 amps all the time. But must a/c units use at least 30amps for a small unit and up to 80amps for a big unit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So you know, once you need past a certain power level, you really need to move to three phase power.
 
Babykat said:
I did just notice your in Australia where they use 240 volts at 50 herts. Which means a 6kw generator would only produce 25 amps. But those amp would be more effective. I’m not sure what the house services use or the appliances use in this voltage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Are you correlating frequency with power? It doesn't work that way if so.
 
[FONT=&quot]Climate News[/FONT]
[h=1]In a victory for energy reality, EU dumps 2050 climate alarmist targets and commitments[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest easy by Larry Hamlin In a spectacular climate alarmist policy failure the EU dumped its “carbon neutrality by 2050” commitment and targets driven by the sacred but highly arbitrary and unsubstantiated 1.5 degree C global temperature “limit” and ended its Brussels summit with no climate commitments or targets for year 2050. The EU heavy…
[/FONT]
 
Lord of Planar said:
Are you correlating frequency with power? It doesn't work that way if so.
Click to expand...

I no how frequency effect electrical circuits. I know it wouldn’t really effect v/c/w. I was just noting the difference between the frequency I use most of the time and the frequency used there. I do work with a lot of German engineers and sometimes work with 230v at 60hz. Although the frequency doesn’t effect efficiency it does effect how fast motors rotate. Those why we use VFDs on motors when we want to control there speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lord of Planar said:
So you know, once you need past a certain power level, you really need to move to three phase power.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you a question if electric always follows the path of least resistance to ground. In a three phase system with no neutral how does it get to ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lord of Planar said:
Are you correlating frequency with power? It doesn't work that way if so.
Click to expand...

Here’s another question. If your trying to use a 4/20v signal for controls but your getting to much inducted voltage to read the signal. Now you can’t move the cable to another location to reduce inducted voltage or change the cable shielding. How would you reduce the inducted voltage so you could read the signal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
:) :) :)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom