So lets assume its all a lie

So you got nothing except your memory? Any possibility your memory may be a tad faulty?
Again:
How long has it been "global climate change"?

 

bird kill to windmills is estimated at 75-to 250K per year in the US insignificant compared to those killed by domestic cats 500M-1B...wind power works and is transferable, it's always blowing somewhere...

 

both can be modified to be more environmentally friendly, neither do as much damage to aquatic life as CO2...

 

do you realize all transmission lines have losses...

 

You can't see simple logic, or it didn't fit your preconceived ideas?

Thank you!

 

Wars are going to happen regardless.

My main point on environmental damage is that there is no environmentally safe form of energy. Everything, including so-called green power, has a downside.

FF environmental damage is concentrated to certain areas. Windpower would cause widespread degradation.

Hydro generation ruins species forever. Look at what has happened to salmon in some areas of the PNW. It turns river environments into lakes.

Tidal, which thankfully isn't used much, renders one of the most productive areas in terms of fish production useless.

FF generation, BP spill include, is not nearly as permanently devastating as are those two forms.

 

Yes, but conventional power can be located closer to the point of need. Most cities have nearby conventional power plants. Windpower has to be located in certain areas. The percentage of windpower lost to transmission losses would thus be higher.

 

Huh?

Certain species of salmon have gone extinct due to hydropower.

Hydropower turns rivers into lakes, which is not a good thing.

Intertidal zones are among the richest nurseries for sea life. Part of the reason for that is the energy provided by the tidal action. Tidal generation destroys that cycle.

 

As is solar power.

 

Well, googling to enhance my memory:

James Hansen called it the "greenhouse effect" in the late 1980s back when I was a supporter of this idea. In 1988 he testified before a Senate Committee on the subject.

Sometime late 1990s, "global warming" became the buzzword, and early 2000s, "Climate change" became the buzzword.

 

I do agree. I see solar becoming important in the next 10-20 yrs, as the price continues to drop. Wind/hydro/tidal I think aren't worthwhile, and won't become worthwhile.

 

Global warming was limited to higher than average temperatures. "Climate Change" eliminated 6 months of dead air by allowing extreme winter weather to be man caused.

 

Greenhouse effect, global warming and climate change are not the same. The greenhouse effect is one cause of global warming. You cannot state that global warming is the cause of the greenhouse effect. Different meanings.
Global warming is one cause of climate change. You cannot state that climate change is one cause of global warming. Different meanings.
The terms are not interchangeable.

When was the IPCC created? I am certain it was not created in the early 2000s.

 

how do you move a hydro dam closer to a city??? power has been transferred from northern Quebec to the eastern US for decades ...wind power will be no different...

 

But wars for resources can be avoided.
I agree with you on that. But you are assuming environmental damgae from FF is less than all other damage.

You will have to be more specific and explain this "widespread degradation".

Longterm consequences of BP spill have not yet been studied. The long term consequences of Exxon Valdez are still being felt.

I am familiar with the salmon problem but have not reead of any environmental problems of tidal power. Perhaps you would enlighten me.

 

huh? do I need to post it agai, read it SLOWLY!

"both can be modified(engineered) to be more environmentally friendly, neither do as much damage to aquatic life as CO2..."

 

Sunligh is good for 100W per square foot (at 100%), per hour, good for 5 to 7 hours a day in the desert (or 300 days a year here in San Diego).

I live on 2.5 acres, about 100,000 square feet, 50MW to 70MW's hit my property daily, about 22 billion watts a year. I use a bit over a MWhour a month in the summer.

I have been dissapointed with solar cells, so I researched stirling engines last night. They are the most efficient heat engine, nearing Carnot efficiency. Greater than 50% can be achieved. The Beta version has promise.

Storing heat is difficult, melting salt seems to be the preferred method. Melts at 500F (where the stirling engine is 45% efficient) and good to over 1000F.

The exhaust gas temperature of a car is over 1000F, and the stirling Beta 's power piston is on the cold side, automotive materials are more than suitable.

Time to tinker in the garage.

 

To Wyly's point - regional dam's are not associated with mass extinction events like dramatic change in ocean PH levels are.

" Ridgwell and Schmidt found that ocean acidification is happening about ten times faster today than it did 55 million years ago. And while the saturation horizon rose to 1,500 meters 55 million years ago, it will lurch up to 550 meters on average by 2150, according to the model.

The PETM was powerful enough to trigger widespread extinctions in the deep oceans."

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2241

 

From Transportation Research Record Journal

So which paper is more credible? An opinion piece in USAToday or a research paper published in a journal.

 

Your paper was produced by "The Transportation Energy Committee sponsored publication of this paper."

Which references, but doesn't seem to use any of the data from this paper:
http://cascadepolicy.org/QP/CAFE_link.pdf

Bottom line:

USA Total fatalities 20,492
Deaths from 27.5MPG, low calculation 2,517, and high calculation 4,357.
Expected additional deaths with a 40MPG standard 1,127​

My wife and I spent a lot of time looking for a safe, high gas mileage car using Consumer Reports, Edmunds, and Institute of Highway Safety.

Peruse the pages of this document and tell me high MPG are safe.

http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?y=2006-2008

So, would I believe USA Today over the paper you referenced - yep.

 

Competitive Enterprise Institute is not a professional research organization.

Looks like the paper started with a conclusion and found evidence to back its conclusion. That is NOT the scientific method.

I may be missing something, but I don't see any correlation to mpgs.

 

You trust your belief's. I'll trust mine and drive a safe car (based on real world, not "star" ratings). I would rather have the life, than the insurance.

 

After a cursory examination, I would have to agree that my comment made from my perception, is inaccurate. Without providing evidence of figures and how I derived the result of my research, I would have to say, that my comment of "insignificant" would be inaccurate. I could go into the public sector spending in comparison to the private sector spending, BUT that would be splitting hairs. As I have not covered ALL the funding, and have not gone in depth in many areas but the figures are compelling.

HOWEVER, IMO there is still to much being spent on the study of these issues and not enough spent on solutions.

Again, I agree my comment was made without the full facts of the issue stated.

Maybe I was too general to that point of mitigation. You have correctly shown that direct mitigation is an issue that is current and within the realm of reductions in CO2. However, my point of planting a tree to OFFSET the emissions of CO2 is in no way reducing the emissions of CO2 that many tout as being a good way of reduction of emissions. MOST ETS schemes rely totally on this process when they knowingly are going to emit MORE CO2 into the atmosphere as being a good way to reduce emissions. THIS is the mitigation I am talking about. Perhaps I should be more direct to my position with this particular issue, but as I have raised this issue elsewhere I simply made the mistake that all only considered the mitigation as a standard term.

 

That is a typical denier response - introduce a straw man because you can't make a valid argument.

Strawman;

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

There is no climate science claiming anything that you reference above.

There are plenty of policy option (note - these are separate from the actual science) that do not require anything like what you claim.

For just one example - "Greenhouse gas emissions in 2007 fell below base levels by 22.4 percent" (http://www.bmu.de/english/press_releases/archive/16th_legislative_period/pm/42839.php)

I was just over in Germany, there was electricity, hospitals, schools and we didn't have to hunt and forage for our food.

 

This discussion is not about you and the car you want to drive; it is about the relati0nsip between mpgs and safety.
It started out as a discussion on climate change and with that I'll stop any OT responses about car safety and mpgs