Please enlighten me why CO2 should be considered a pollutant and provide evidence as to why it's so terrible.

Infrastructure is part of the problem. But we currently arnt producing enough energy. Like I said before for every one on the planet to live like the average American we'd need to quadruple our energy produced.

CO2 causes global warming and ocean acidification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31503424

The people in the undeveloped world, with no power stations, transmission lines, pipelines, poor roads, are going to get energy and are going to bypass fossil fuels.

In the same way people skipped land lines and when straight to cell phones, they will skip a huge grid run on fossil fuels and will have distributed solar and storage.

Of course developing countries, large cities in India and China, are another story. While they are also expanding renewables rapidly, it's not yet keeping up with demand.

The only way to put fossil fuels out of business is with nuclear power. In 20-25 years there are going to be 10 billion people on the planet.

Disagree. I don't understand how people can look at the trends in adoption and cost and not see what's coming.

http://www.theguardian.com/vital-sig...ds-solar-power

You can see what is happening and still be reasonable enough to believe that it will be extremely difficult to become more than 15-20% of global energy supply.

You still need baseload. Storage doesn't seem anywhere close to ready to solve that problem.

Have you read about storage?

New technology is not needed. Large storage projects have existed for decades. They have been needed for a long time because daytime demands dwarf nighttime demands, but conventional power production is mostly run 24/7.

Developing countries will achieve higher rates of renewable energy faster than countries like the US which already have massive amounts of conventional energy supply. And 15-20% is already surpassed in a lot of places.

Now, not counting hydro, because it's limited*, Maine is about 35% renewable, Iowa is 30% renewable, South Dakota is about 30% renewable.

UK is about 10% renewable, Denmark is about 40% renewable, Germany is about 26% renewable, Spain 47%.


*if you count hydro there are lots of places in the country and the world which are at or near 100% renewable.

That just isn't true. Solar and win account for 1.6% of global energy. Hydro is at 6.8% but is actually practical and has proven to be reliable.

What is global warming and why is it a bad thing? CO2 also causes plant growth

Fact is CO2 emissions from man have never been higher. Life expectancy and over all quality of life has never been greater, things like clean water and air quality have never been better. Not to mention the runway global warming these "climate scientist" predicted would happen from CO2 emissions 35 years ago never happened.

Those two things aren't even contradictory. Solar and wind have become significant sources of energy in some locations. They are just in the last few years becoming cost competitive.

You're the guy who said the last 100 years was some proof about what will happen the next 100 years so I doubt you would consider the fact that fossil fuels having a lot of capacity built in the past doesn't mean that they will in the future.

75% of new electricity generation in the US in 2015 was from renewables.

I linked you to a good starting place if you want to learn why global warming will be harmful to civilization. Yes, more CO2 can increase plant growth, but only when it is the limiting factor. And sometimes too more CO2 can be a bad thing.

This is because the really bad effects of global warming occur after 2C . That's why people are trying to limit warming to 2C. You are not engaging with the evidence at all on this point.

No one claimed that there would be "runaway" warming and predictions from 30 years ago have been pretty good--much better than people who said there would be no or very little warming.

I already pointed Shifty back to the climate change thread because he clearly is still denying climate change is a problem and that discussion doesn't belong in this thread where we accept that it is a problem and talk about the best ways to deal with it.

Shifty apparently was too busy driving up to Maine and impregnating white girls to realize which thread he should be in.

Some being a key word here. Tell me, what is the reason they are now becoming more cost competitive in the last few years?

Nope, I said just like people were free to choose how they got their energy 100 years ago they should be able to do the same now. Taxing one form of energy because you don't like it is wrong. I could care less if you put a solar panel on your roof but don't force me to or charge me more for the fossil fuels I use.


Another stat you claim without context, you "green" people love to do that and cherry pick numbers. You left out the word capacity. I wonder if the Billions in subsidies has anything to do with that number and not that renewable's are more economical? Actual net power generation from renewables in 2015 was around 13%.

I don't really want to continue with you shifty if you're being intentionally obtuse. But, for now, I'll take that as genuine discussion.

1. Prices of solar and wind have been dropping rapidly as the market grows. There have been subsidies (as well as tariffs - 30% tariff on Chinese Solar panels in the US). Most subsidies have been decreasing. Some areas have more expensive energy costs than others. Solar resources (sunny or not) and wind vary by location. As prices drop, solar and wind become competitive in more and more areas. In 1970, even though a solar panel cost $100 per watt, it was still economical for a remote transmitter on a mountain. Now at $1/watt it's competitive in a lot more places. In a couple years at $.5/watt it will be competitive in even more places.

2. Your fossil fuels are polluting my air A LOT. You don't have the right to do that. We allow you to do that as long as it is for the greater good. After that, either keep all your exhaust on your own property or pay for it to be removed.

3. That's not cherry picking. 75% of new energy production is impressive. I'm not claiming that solar and wind will replace fossil fuels overnight. I'm not advocating for fossil fuels plants to all be torn down right now.

You like to talk about the last 100 years and the next 100 years.





I don't see how one can look at that information and not conclude that it will be the future. I have a hard time understanding how one would not want that to the be the future, and you seem to be rooting against it.

Even if you're 100% on this causing warming or warming causing a problem, I'd think, given that it's not a big deal to adopt renewables, you'd want it to happen sooner, rather than later.



and of course CO2 is just one of many problems.

I'm ever so thankful!

Right, so it can be competitive in certain areas or for certain things (never argued that it wasn't). But for general power generation for everyday use its terrible and doesn't come close to fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro.

Who decides when its no longer for the greater good? Does 500+ tones of steel and iron required for every MW produced by windmills pollute and will windmill uses pay to have those pollutants to be removed?

It's not new energy production though, its energy production capacity. Net generation consumed from renewables in the US was 13%. What exactly are you advocating then?

I'm rooting for everyone on earth to have the same access to energy as the average American. Wind and Solar have never proved they can scale to achieve this. I don't know how you can look at this chart and thing renewables can when for every person on earth to use the same energy has the average american we'd need to quadruple our energy produced.




There you go posting things without context again. What is that a picture of Beijing? I've been there, the air quality was fine and didn't look like that at all. I actually live about 5km from 310 MW coal fire power plant and have never had air quality issues or seen anything like that.

Here is a picture of a oilsands reclamation project:

Shifty has been in Beijing when the wind is blowing in the right direction and assumes it is always like that. My girlfriend is from Beijing and we have been there on days where you can barely see the other side of the major ring roads. Even on clear days the air is bad enough that blowing your nose after a decent walk results in a bunch of black snot.

Your right, that was a poor example by me. Still life expectancy is at an all time high there. Those masks must really do a good job.

Beijing is one of the cleanest large cities in China. Go to one of the non tourist major cities and you can see why China is trying so hard to switch to greener energy. Can't imagine what it would be like if they had American level consumption rates. Yhey already have one of the highest lung cancer rates in the world.

Air pollution isn't the only reason for the high lung cancer rates. Smoking has become very popular in China in the past few decades. Tobacco use is the main attributer for 53% of lung cancer diagnoses in China. They also have indoor pollution problems where they don't have good air filtration, water filtration and use cheaper building materials. They absolutely should work towards burning fuels cleaner like the west does, I'd argue they will get there.

Interesting how the life expectancy Graph of China hardly changes its trend line in relation to the parabolic increase in the use of coal.

Those graphs dont show much if any correlation.

It was more to show the premise that microbet and dutch have (judging from the picture and their posts) that C02 emissions from fossil fuel use is causing catastrophic health problems is wrong.

If I wanted to use a graph to show the correlation between fossil fuel use and over all improvement of life I'd use this one:

... I really can't believe that there's someone who is crusading for BEIJING air quality being fine with a serious face.

That's some next level trolling or something.

Traffic cops die in their 40's-50's, taking a jog in Beijing is a huge net negative for your overall health etc.

The life expectancy in China is rising DESPITE the huge pollution problems. Air pollution statically and concretely kills. Your correlation is like saying population being overweight increases life expectancy.

In biology class in college we were taught hydro is absolutely terrible for the fish populations, which has a large effect on other animals long term as well.