Does the Reality of Global Warming Burn Your Arse?

Who are these sects ??

 

Costa Rica is an example. They use 2000Kwh/yr per person the 1/5 the US.
Costa Rica has an installed capacity of around 2700 MW and are consuming around 1600 MW of that capacity.

The have a GDP of $60billon. Liberia, has a similar population size yet their GDP is only 2.3Billion.

It doesn't take a lot.

The US has solitary power plants that produce more power than all of Costa Rica.

There is still a lot of poverty in Costa Rica.
Costa Rica has a poverty rate around 25% where Liberia is around 50%.
But hey, at least the people in Costa Rica have power.

I am not saying that what is working in Costa Rica would work in Liberia.
I am just saying that people don't need a whole lot of energy to have a better life,
and that you don't need hydrocarbons to do it.


I could use one of those Scandinavian countries, which are quite wealthy to illustrate my point as well.
But they live in the northern latitudes and require heat so I don't think it's a fair comparison.

 

Costa Rica has a gdp per capita ~ one fifth of the US. It’s a very poor country. Ninety % of their power comes from hydro and geo thermal. What is your point ??

 

There are more factors involved than energy capacity.
You are never going to bring Costa Rica or Libera to the same level as the US? You know that I don't even know why you bring it up...

I don't care about energy capacity. We could build them a 10GW Plant it won't matter.

Are the people in Costa Rica poor because they don't have enough power?
No, they aren't even using the energy at the capacity they have available.

 

Impressive post. Thank you for your hard work. This reality will eventually hit even those with a vacuum tube between the ears. . .hopefully before it's too late to affect a repair.

 

No country uses exactly the energy capacity they have. The capacity level is determined by peak load. That proves nothing.

 

The Climate Change fearmongers remind me of ants that only come out when there are crumbs on the floor. But when the crumbs are gone, they all go back into hiding again; waiting for the next round of crumbs.

 

What repairs do you suggest ??? What will be the economic cost ??? What will be the net reduction in global average temperature ???

Do you think that the preceding questions should be answered before proceeding with any repairs ??

 

I suggest total conversion to non-fossil fuel energy sources. The cost would be offset by the development of new energy markets & jobs within those markets. The net reduction of global average temperatures need only be a couple of degrees. That's feasible, right?

 

You haven’t answered the questions.

 

Which questions did I miss?

 

What are the economic costs ?? What is the reduction in the rate of global warming from these actions ??

 

If they are capable of adding more power, without having to build another plant, they have room for growth.
Costa Ricans aren't stating any wars, they aren't polluting, they aren't rich. But they are happy.

That might not be good for the US. This country does not exist to please everyone it exists to come to a compromise.

Why would you want every other country on the planet to do it the way we did? Did we do it the right way? Did Russia?
India, China, they are well on their way to following right in our footsteps.

But I can leave here if I want to right? But this is my home if I want to live here I am going to have to accept the fact that decisions are going to be made for the greater good.

You explain to me how giving another county a power plant any power plant is for the greater good? The greater good of what, the world?

We need more money we need more resources.. so no it's not in our best interest. Oh, so it gives us the warm fuzzies? How about we just give our poor the money instead? Seems to me that would be the much more moral decision.

What about the countries we refuse to help? Are we using powerplants like carrots? "Sorry El Presidente' you play by our rules or we pull your funding."
That's a great idea, right? let's give America more chances to "spread democracy". That's how we can benefit the greater good, through subjugation and submission. America was not created to do that to people.

I get that people think we should return the favor, France gave us, but let's face it France had interests in getting England out of the colonies.

 

Third world countries must have inexpensive electrical energy available 34/7/365 in order to grow their economies and significantly increase the standard of living of their citizens. That’s a fact. It’s immoral to deny third world countries access to fossil fuel power generation and it’s moral to provide this essential raw material to those countries with significant real poverty levels. This is a way for first world countries to actually help third world countries but of course the global warming alarmists won’t allow it. And that is immoral.

 

We are not denying them access to anything.
The size of the bank account is not a measurement of how satisfied a person is with life.
Over, and over, and over again.

Giving food water and shelter is moral.
Anything beyond that is self-serving.

Reminds me of when Coke bought some land in Belize.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...belize-government-northern-belize-belize-land

 

Sure we are. The global warming alarmists will finance wind or solar but not fossil fuel power and grow their economies to raise people out of real poverty. You argue that the poor in third world countries should be satisfied with their lives ??

 

No, I argue that you are assuming, your answers, to their problems, will satisfy them.

This isn't how we should do things. We don't just give a county a power plant. That's ridiculous. That doesn't help anybody.

Let's assume we actually manage to pass a bill.
We only offer this kind of thing to US companies. A county needs to be in a certain amount of despair to qualify. The money cannot go to develop the company's own land and must go to developing the countrie's infrastructure. Those are the only requirements.
From the US perspective, there are 0 environmental concerns.

Coke say's to Belize, hey we want to build some farms and a bottling plant. Belize says OK we need infrastructure. Coke then comes back to the US and says, "Hey we got this project in Belize we want to build, we want some money."

Some bureaucrat says "Well, how much do you need?"
"Well, our estimate is $100mm"
The bureaucrat looks it over, And says, "Ok we'll give you a grant from the slush fund for $100mm."

They then take the estimate to Belize.
Belize agrees and everyone is happy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But maybe...
Belize looks over it and realizes the increased shipping might hurt their coral reefs. Maybe they are worried the extra roads and traffic will be harmful to their wildlife. They realize they aren't just changing the 200,000 acres they are making changes all over their country.

But, they still want the factory and the jobs. So they ask for concessions.
Maybe they want the bottling plant to be solar powered. Only low emission ships and tractor trailers. Maybe they want the shipping port built a certain way. Maybe they want the shipping port in a place that has less of an impact but would be more expensive to build. Maybe they want wildlife crossings over or under the roads. Who knows, it's their country.

Coke agrees to pay for the hybrid trucks and promises all vessels carrying their goods will meet their standards. They agree to build an onsite solar plant. But there are extra infrastructure costs.

Now it costs $200mm.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's say the government rejects it. If we are offering, and we reject it, that would be immoral.

If we can't afford to give the money it can't be immoral, so that is the exception.
"Sorry, the slush fund is dry, get on the list."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But,
Let's say the US approves 150, Belize agrees to give up their desire for hybrid container ships, and trucks. In exchange Coke to gives the other 50 for infrastructure. They shake, sign and start to build.

The US had no hand in the decision. That was between Belize and Coke.
We were only there to oversee the funds met the estimate, qualified, and to ensure Coke wasn't embezzling the funds.
Any disagreements over the contract are between Coke and Belize.

Belize keeps its sovereignty intact because they don't owe the US a Favor.
They aren't dependent on us, we just helped them when they were in need.

From the United States standpoint, it's a win-win. We get taxes from Coke. We get brownie points on the world stage.

 

It is absolutely proven that economic development depends on inexpensive electrical power available 24/7/365. If first world countries truly wanted to improve the welfare of citizens in third world countries they would provide fossil fuel power generation plants. What is so difficult to understand about this ???

 

Empires were built prior to electricity. Your assumptions are false.

 

The fact that one very critical requirement for economic development, increasing the standard of living, and moving people out of poverty is inexpensive electrical energy available 24/7/365 is not an assumption.

 

If you are correct poverty should not exist in this county.

 

Yes you could but this is unfeasible simply due to the amount of sediment behind these dams. It is hard to fathom how much volume of dirt this is but its a logistical nightmare to even attempt it. We have a local dam that is almost filled up, it is about 100 feet high. The city asked Granite to determine how much it would cost to remove it all. They said it would take millions and require a rail line to support it. You would then have the problem of disposal, where would you put it all? Dump it at the mouth of the river downstream? Take it out in barges? Nope. It is far easier to let nature take its course and take the dam down in stages with natural rain flows helping the task. Think about what would happen downstream if you just removed the dam in a short period of time. The sediment would overwhelm the downstream river and likely damage more property, build up sand dunes in unwanted places and possibly kill everything in the river. The folks doing these are aware of all the pitfalls. They bring power companies, city, county and state officials, landowners, environmental groups, scientists and national parks/Corps of engineers into the process to help all along the way.

 

California has steadied our total demand now despite having more people and more devices. We did it through careful legislation to conserve energy. Most of the energy we produce is used to heat and cool buildings. Make it a national priority to upgrade buildings to reduce the need for cooling and heating. It would put people to work, make our buildings more efficient, cost less money in the long run and use less energy. There are tons of things one can do besides build another coal plant or dam.

 

You're missing the point. You need water retention projects desperately. You live in a semi arid area. You cannot supply adequate water to the people you've got and You want to import more? Yes you are looking at a monumental task one way or the other. Made worse by the failure of previous politicians to deal with either border security or silting of reservoirs..

 

I understand the point. Surface water does not provide most of the water we use today though, most of it comes from wells. It is very true that most of the people who live in the west live in the most arid portions of it. Most if not all rivers are already dammed, every single dam is filling up with silt and there is very little anyone can do about it. If we want to continue to build cities in deserts such as Vegas, Phoenix and the inland Empire, we will have to face the simple truth that there is not enough water above ground to maintain these cities given the current climate. Look at Glen Canyon Dam, Lake Powell will likely never fill up again in our lifetime. The amount of sustained rainfall and snow pack in the Rockies needed to fill it up would span years upon years of above normal precipitation. Yet Arizona is still building, Vegas is still depending upon the river, LA and San Diego need that water. Where is it going to come from? The smaller dams that are being taken down are not key to filling the water needs of the west, they are all very small and most of them were installed to service a small agricultural need or community. Some were for very small power plants, in every case they have outlived their utility. So, your point seems to be:

1. These small dams are critical or necessary so keep them up at any cost.
2. There are many places where new dams could be built or existing dams raised or dredged.

Both of these ideas have been known to authorities for decades. The first idea is being thrown out one dam at a time to little or no impact. The second idea is unfeasible. In California two surface water ideas similar to this have been proposed, both to vehement objections. One is raising Shasta, the other is the Auburn Dam. Both ideas will go no where. If you want more water and rainfall is diminishing, the prudent thing to do is manage what you have in a more efficient manner. That means taking on water rights, charging farmers more, putting meters on every user, forcing farmers to grow less thirsty crops, plugging leaks, etc. This last one is what we will end up doing in California. We understand water.