Mad Mike

I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

Recommended Posts

care to tell me how adding more freshwater to the environment increases salinity (unless ya are stupid enough to dump the condensates into the water) ????

 

Or unless ya are stupid enough to not know what you're talking about. In the grand scheme of things it may be diluted back out down the road but there are local effects where the brine is returned.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-impacts-of-relying-on-desalination/

And, according to Jeffrey Graham of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography's Center for Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine, the salty sludge leftover after desalinization for every gallon of freshwater produced, another gallon of doubly concentrated salt water must be disposed of can wreak havoc on marine ecosystems if dumped willy-nilly offshore. For some desalinization operations, says Graham, it is thought that the disappearance of some organisms from discharge areas may be related to the salty outflow.[/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have a device that creates water out of nothing? Wow. You could make a lot of money from that.

 

Uh, no, I think that some of us are.

 

refining,nor desalination, is not creating from nothing

 

yusuf.....are you aware of the many options to dumping brine into the water(which include harvesting valuable minerals)???

 

 

if this is typical of what our higher education system is producing it is no wonder the country is a mess.......time to pop your bubble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

refining,nor desalination, is not creating from nothing

Funny. I could have sworn somebody said something about adding water to the environment.

Must have been somebody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny. I could have sworn somebody said something about adding water to the environment.

Must have been somebody else.

 

ya obviously left out fresh for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ya obviously left out fresh for some reason.

Because it's irrelevant.

If you remove water from salt water, what's left is saltier water.

(This is because of a principal called "conservation of matter". It's one of the things they teach you, in "science".)

The only way to NOT have saltier water left over, is to magically create water out of nothing. (Which, as I've pointed out, is something you can't do).

(But then, you knew that. Which is WHY you tried to make it look like desalination created water, as opposed to extracting already-existing water from some place).

Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

refining,nor desalination, is not creating from nothing

yusuf.....are you aware of the many options to dumping brine into the water(which include harvesting valuable minerals)???

Sure there are options. Are they viable though? Are you willing to pay a whole lot more for energy due to the increased consumption of energy for this process? I mean would life be worth living if the cost of having water was losing your pickup or SUV? Do tell.

Mind you that's not taking the acidification of the oceans into account. Using more energy to get fresh water would only accelerate/exacerbate that problem.

You may scoff at others' allegedly poor education. However it's your side proposing that there's a free lunch. How smart does that sound?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure there are options. Are they viable though? Are you willing to pay a whole lot more for energy due to the increased consumption of energy for this process? I mean would life be worth living if the cost of having water was losing your pickup or SUV? Do tell.

Mind you that's not taking the acidification of the oceans into account. Using more energy to get fresh water would only accelerate/exacerbate that problem.

You may scoff at others' allegedly poor education. However it's your side proposing that there's a free lunch. How smart does that sound?

 

They are viable and getting even more so....some even think they are a money maker

 

it does not need to increase the costs of energy(which is a strange complaint from someone supporting policies that clearly do increase the cost of energy)

 

are you ready to concede on salinity before we move on to acidification?

 

 

my lunch ain't free, I work for it. :)

 

Because it's irrelevant.

If you remove water from salt water, what's left is saltier water.

(This is because of a principal called "conservation of matter". It's one of the things they teach you, in "science".)

The only way to NOT have saltier water left over, is to magically create water out of nothing. (Which, as I've pointed out, is something you can't do).

(But then, you knew that. Which is WHY you tried to make it look like desalination created water, as opposed to extracting already-existing water from some place).

 

Obtuse much?  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comparasioins to lead I made are valid.  There are honest questions about how well thing extrapolate at the low end with respect to things like lead affecting the IQ.

 

It is odd to see somebody that talks about the inviability of alternative energy to be talking about the viability of desalination.

 

Are you really claiming that you could produce as much water in the US as the US currently uses from deslination without using more energy?

 

All of the things that you can use to produce water via dislination could also be used to generate electricity.  You'll end up using more energy over some optimal solution.

 

If you use solar to run a deslination plant, then that's solar that you can't use to create electricity.  You've increased your energy production just to produce water.

 

The salt has to go somewhere.  You cannot put it into the ocean.  You can put it back into the ocean in a manner that it will do limited damage (mix it with run off water so it is about the concentration of what is in the ocean), but the idea that we can simply take something out (water) indefinitely without having affects is the same sort of thinking that gets you into climate change problems.


 

I know a lot of GOP that support capture and injection of co2 and obviously we support alt energy sources here in Texas since we get more from it than the eco conscious Germans we sell firewood to  :P

 

House Republicans Ask EPA to Withdraw Carbon-Capture Rule

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/house-republicans-ask-epa-to-withdraw-carbon-capture-rule-20131118

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are viable and getting even more so....some even think they are a money maker

 

it does not need to increase the costs of energy(which is a strange complaint from someone supporting policies that clearly do increase the cost of energy)

 

are you ready to concede on salinity before we move on to acidification?

Nope. First, you haven't provided anything of substance other than saying "some" think it's a money maker. Who? Links? Data to back up their claims? The reason desalinization plants put brine back into the ocean instead of pulling off all the water has to do with the additional energy consumption required to do so for an already energy intensive process. Again, I'd be curious to see how one gets around that and even if you can, there's the issue of the costs, both environmental and economic of the extra energy used.

As for the acidification, I guess that's not happening either? Or if it is, it's not man mande? Or perhaps it's somehow a good thing? What's the spin on this one?

Edited by Yusuf06

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that 3 pages in this thread has probably broken down to some back and forth bickering but a thought occurred to me...

How would suing the republicans for denying global warming be any different than republicans threatening the economy over a debt ceiling increase or republicans impeaching the president for something that has zero bearing on the country as a whole. This comes across as nothing more than political one-ups-manship by democrats playing the republicans dirty game. Furthermore, I would want to be apart of no party that is so petty.

Now, what if this noble cause succeeds? They're sued, hell they're convicted of taking bribes and have to leave office. What then? Are more republican replacements going to magically take up the cause of reversing global warming? Let's say they do (which they won't), how would a nation united against global warming really change anything? How on earth would a united country prevent countries like China, India and other nations going through industrial revolutions from polluting the world? Hell, they can't even solve easier problems like the war on drugs, the war on terrorism and peace in the Middle East. You expect them to stop a problem that isn't even killing people??? Right.

So what will that actually accomplish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would suing the republicans for denying global warming be any different than republicans threatening the economy over a debt ceiling increase or republicans impeaching the president for something that has zero bearing on the country as a whole. This comes across as nothing more than political one-ups-manship by democrats playing the republicans dirty game. Furthermore, I would want to be apart of no party that is so petty.

Now, what if this noble cause succeeds? They're sued, hell they're convicted of taking bribes and have to leave office. What then? Are more republican replacements going to magically take up the cause of reversing global warming? Let's say they do (which they won't), how would a nation united against global warming really change anything? How on earth would a united country prevent countries like China, India and other nations going through industrial revolutions from polluting the world? Hell, they can't even solve easier problems like the war on drugs, the war on terrorism and peace in the Middle East. You expect them to stop a problem that isn't even killing people??? Right.

I see important differences between political moves aiming to deny reality vs political moves aiming to prevent denying of reality.

Solving climate change is a matter of two things: not subsidizing fossil fuels, and investing in advancement of technology. Don't compare it to the stupid war on drugs. Compare it to the awesome moon landing program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The comparasioins to lead I made are valid.  There are honest questions about how well thing extrapolate at the low end with respect to things like lead affecting the IQ.

 

It is odd to see somebody that talks about the inviability of alternative energy to be talking about the viability of desalination.

 

Are you really claiming that you could produce as much water in the US as the US currently uses from deslination without using more energy?

 

All of the things that you can use to produce water via dislination could also be used to generate electricity.  You'll end up using more energy over some optimal solution.

 

If you use solar to run a deslination plant, then that's solar that you can't use to create electricity.  You've increased your energy production just to produce water.

 

The salt has to go somewhere.  You cannot put it into the ocean.  You can put it back into the ocean in a manner that it will do limited damage (mix it with run off water so it is about the concentration of what is in the ocean), but the idea that we can simply take something out (water) indefinitely without having affects is the same sort of thinking that gets you into climate change problems.

 

House Republicans Ask EPA to Withdraw Carbon-Capture Rule

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/house-republicans-ask-epa-to-withdraw-carbon-capture-rule-20131118

 

we will simply disagree on the lead analogy,co2 would be more comparable to o2 

 

solar is viable in some areas, so is desalination.....the need and options matter

 

What is your hangup on using energy?....of course it uses energy(even geothermal or solar), though utilizing waste heat in co-generation units  would be basically free aside from plant costs.

Yusuf seemed to think it would drive up the costs of energy, which is what I disagreed with.

 

the brine can be both mined for minerals and injected far below the water table.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222880911_Production_of_magnesium_from_desalination_brines

http://www.greenprophet.com/2012/08/mining-minerals-desalination/

the advances in membrane tech are opening even more possibilities

http://inside.mines.edu/~tcath/publications/CathPub/31_MD_minerals.pdf

objecting to a specific carbon capture rule is not opposing carbon capture, hell we even pay for co2 to inject here.

and there are other options

http://www.texasishot.org/texas-energy-efficiency-2/clean-coal-power-plant-set-for-texas/

http://www.summitpower.com/projects/carbon-capture/

the International Energy Agency predicts that aging oil and gas reservoirs could hold 920 gigatons of carbon dioxide–enough to take a century of emissions from 3,000 plants like Summit’s.

The Summit plant is an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) design that converts its fuel into a clean-burning mix of hydrogen and carbon monoxide called syngas. Of the 30 IGCC plants proposed in the United States since 2000, only one–Duke Energy’s Edwardsport, IN, plant–has broken ground.

The troubled FutureGen project, a public-private partnership to prove the integration of coal gasification, carbon capture, and sequestration technologies, was killed by the Bush Administration only to be resurrected by President Obama’s energy secretary, Steven Chu, last spring. The DOE and FutureGen’s industrial backers have been haggling since last spring to trim the $2.4 billion price tag for the Mattoon, IL, project, of which more than $1 billion could be federal money.

Summit (conceived in 2005 as Texas’s entry in the bidding for FutureGen) could beat the pack because its products are more diverse. While most IGCC plants burn all of their syngas to generate power, Summit will send some to a chemical plant to produce urea for fertilizers. And, most importantly, whereas FutureGen proposes to store captured carbon in a saline aquifer at added cost, Summit’s sale of carbon dioxide for oil recovery will help cover its capital and operating costs.

Selling carbon dioxide to oil and gas operators should boost the Penwell plant’s revenues by about 50 percent. Miller says those sales will cover one-third of the revenues Summit will need to service the $550 million in equity investment and roughly $1 billion in loans it is now seeking in order to break ground by the end of 2010.

Both the co2 and the brine can be valuable and defer costs rather than a liability

 

add

 

another example

http://breakingenergy.com/2014/07/16/a-win-for-carbon-capture-at-nrg-coal-plant-in-texas/

The problem: the massive cost of deploying a technology that, while conceptually accepted, remains largely in a “demonstration” phase. But with the Obama administration pursuing new restrictions on coal-plant emissions, carbon capture could be gaining traction.

Putting the CO2 to work to boost oil production – not a new technique in and of itself – is being counted on to help make the technology more economically viable; with the Petra Nova project, production at West Ranch, near Vanderbilt, Texas, a working oilfield since 1938, is expected to go from 500 barrels a day to 15,000.

In a fact sheet on the project [PDF], the National Energy Technology Laboratory points to another hopeful aspect of Petra Nova: While capture and compression of CO2 can be a big (and thus expensive) power consumer itself, a cogeneration plant at the Texas project is “anticipated to reduce carbon capture costs and increase system flexibility and efficiency.”

The process that will be used to scrub carbon from the coal plant’s emissions is the same one that was used at a DOE-backed pilot project in Alabama. With it, the DOE said, “coal-fired power generation would have a greenhouse gas footprint much lower than that of a traditional natural gas power plant.”

Edited by twa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see important differences between political moves aiming to deny reality vs political moves aiming to prevent denying of reality.

Solving climate change is a matter of two things: not subsidizing fossil fuels, and investing in advancement of technology. Don't compare it to the stupid war on drugs. Compare it to the awesome moon landing program.

America cannot solve global warming by itself. If solving global warming were as simple as you make it out to be (which I doubt) then you'd still have to coerce dozens of other independent nations to follow America's lead. That is the part that is nearly impossible and that is the part that suing a political party doesn't address. Hence this just looks like political gamesmanship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America cannot solve global warming by itself. If solving global warming were as simple as you make it out to be (which I doubt) then you'd still have to coerce dozens of other independent nations to follow America's lead. That is the part that is nearly impossible and that is the part that suing a political party doesn't address. Hence this just looks like political gamesmanship.

Countries do follow America's lead... unfortunately so far America's been leading them in the wrong direction.

 

The solution is simple... but do not confluse "simple" with "easy to implement".

 

At this point we have a major political party that openly denies reality and keeps getting elected.  That makes it difficult to implement simple reality-based solutions.

 

For example, it is a fact that we currently subsidise fossil fuels.  Besides short-term subsidies, there are also long-term costs to fossil fuels that we are currently ignoring.  Simple solution would be: stop ignoring those long-term costs, e.g. cap and trade.  Simple, but not easy to implement.

Edited by alexey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Countries do follow America's lead... unfortunately so far America's been leading them in the wrong direction.

 

The solution is simple... but do not confluse "simple" with "easy to implement".

 

At this point we have a major political party that openly denies reality and keeps getting elected.  That makes it difficult to implement simle reality-based solutions.

 

For example, it is a fact that we currently subsidise fossil fuels.  Besides short-term subsidies, there are also long-term costs to fossil fuels that we are currently ignoring.  Simple solution would be: stop ignoring those long-term costs, e.g. cap and trade.  Simple, but not easy to implement.

I don't know if I agree that other countries follow America's lead. For instance, European countries are ages ahead of us while East Asian and Middle Eastern countries do as they please. You have to literally govern clean air and environmental change. Those governments are nothing like our own. The companies in those regions will do the least expensive practice, regardless of environmental impact. They do this to try and catch up to us in economy and technology. Their governments allow this because they want them to catch up to us in those industries.

Imagine when countries in Africa advance to some sort of industrial revolution, we will have to worry about that next.

I strongly doubt man's will to practice clean industry when immediate reactions do not hurt anyone. Man is inherently selfish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if I agree that other countries follow America's lead. For instance, European countries are ages ahead of us while East Asian and Middle Eastern countries do as they please. You have to literally govern clean air and environmental change. Those governments are nothing like our own. The companies in those regions will do the least expensive practice, regardless of environmental impact. They do this to try and catch up to us in economy and technology. Their governments allow this because they want them to catch up to us in those industries.

Imagine when countries in Africa advance to some sort of industrial revolution, we will have to worry about that next.

I strongly doubt man's will to practice clean industry when immediate reactions do not hurt anyone. Man is inherently selfish.

Yes companies in those regions produce goods for us with least expensive practices, regardless of environmental or human impact.  And we buy them.

 

We implemented protections for our workers, but not for workers who produce goods for us in other countries.

 

We implemented protections for our environment, but not for environmental impact in other countries for us to get cheaper stuff.

 

I agree with you about the selfishness of man.  Selfish man has many explanations for his behaviour.  "they are selfish too" seems to be the most popular.  There are TONS of simple stuff that we should have done a long time ago, and need to do as soon as we can.

Edited by alexey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. First, you haven't provided anything of substance other than saying "some" think it's a money maker. Who? Links? Data to back up their claims? The reason desalinization plants put brine back into the ocean instead of pulling off all the water has to do with the additional energy consumption required to do so for an already energy intensive process. Again, I'd be curious to see how one gets around that and even if you can, there's the issue of the costs, both environmental and economic of the extra energy used.

As for the acidification, I guess that's not happening either? Or if it is, it's not man mande? Or perhaps it's somehow a good thing? What's the spin on this one?

 

in addition to the links in my reply to peter there is this

http://iestech.com/seawater-brine-recycling

 

how much energy do you think they use to procure valuable minerals that are essential?

 

 

ready to surrender on salinity so we can move to acidity?  ;)

 

some saw mesquite that grows like a weed as a burden and bother......till someone decided to sell it to the Germans ect.

oil itself used to be a bother.....funny how that changed

 

there is even a market for brine itself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

in addition to the links in my reply to peter there is this

http://iestech.com/seawater-brine-recycling

 

how much energy do you think they use to procure valuable minerals that are essential?

 

 

ready to surrender on salinity so we can move to acidity?   ;)

 

some saw mesquite that grows like a weed as a burden and bother......till someone decided to sell it to the Germans ect.

oil itself used to be a bother.....funny how that changed

 

there is even a market for brine itself

 

I'm just going to respond to this.  I suspect without government regulation, "normal" energy consumption will go up.

 

Whether that causes an increase in energy prices depends on a few things, including how we do it.

 

For example, the best way, that I know of to do this, is actually to build a nuclear power plant and use the steam it produces in its function as desalination.

 

In which case, you actually produce more electricity.

 

The Japanese actually do a lot of that.

 

Of course, I suspect given with what happened in Japan people are going to be a little edgy about building nuclear power plants near where they have easy access to large amounts of salt water.

 

Without some sort of real government requirements, the desalination plants are going to tap into whatever is the easiest/cheapest energy source that they can so that they can make the most money possible.

 

Which means the electric grid and/or natural gas.  Which likely will increase prices.

 

The reason waste energy is wasted because it isn't very cost effective to do something with it.  If it was, companies would be doing things, like generating electricity, with it now.

 

Yes, if you do things, like use government regulations, you can force companies to do things with it.

 

But they aren't jumping up and down to do it because it makes economic sense.

 

And the fact that you can produce different minerals from it doesn't help that much.  It isn't like there is a shortage of NaCl or in the last 30 years that's flipped the switch in terms of desalination becoming more wide spread.

 

Yes, if it makes sense to get water from desalination, then the extra NaCl (and other things) can be sold, but it doesn't make sense to desalinate water to get NaCl (and other things).

 

And the more water you have to desalinate, the more NaCl (and other things) that you have, the less value they have (i.e. supply goes up and demand goes down and prices go down).

 

And this is my point, that's where if Republicans wanted to do, they could start to do things like say, hey here's one problem, and here's a solution, and here's what we are going to do to help.

 

Now, in terms of the GOP and carbon capture:

 

This is from your link:

 

"Could Texas, whose governor dismisses global warming and opposes climate legislation, deliver the world’s first carbon-neutral coal-fired power plant? That looks increasingly likely thanks to a $1.75 billion project in West Texas that received a signed agreement last week for a $350 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy."

 

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/200633-house-gop-launches-probe-into-epa-climate-rule

 

"The Department of Energy has also backed the technology against GOP claims that carbon capture technologies are not ready to be used at coal-fired power plants and represent a de facto ban on future plants all together."

 

http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/institute/news/republicans-question-federal-funding-ccs

 

"As Congress grapples with an ongoing debt crisis, some House Republicans are questioning how the federal government spends money on advanced coal technology. "Does it make sense for [the Department of Energy] to continue focusing its $400 million coal R&D effort almost exclusively on carbon capture and sequestration?" Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, asked at a hearing yesterday."

 

The new plant is going forward because of a grant given to it from the DOE, while Republicans in Congress question whether the funding makes sense.

 

The technology, the approach, and the funding aren't being supported and nobody thinks the thing would be being built without the funding, and/or the fear that in the near future that CO2 may be capped.

 

The technology is being driven because of things Dems have done and the things that the industry is scared the Dems will do.

 

Not because it makes economic sense currently (even with the ability to sell CO2) and not because of ANYTHING the GOP has done.

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The technology is being driven because of things Dems have done and the things that the industry is scared the Dems will do.

 

Not because it makes economic sense currently (even with the ability to sell CO2) and not because of ANYTHING the GOP has done.

 

 

if that makes ya feel better........I will certainly credit the Dems with ignoring economics in favor of policy and scaring energy producers.(and anyone else with sense)

 

I'm curious if ya think using it to increase oil production is better than simply injecting it elsewhere at a loss?

 

I agree with ya on nuclear for all the good it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in Lake Tahoe. We've gotten pretty much no snow the last 3 winters and this summer have had more cloudy rainy days than sunny. A summer like this is unheard of. It feels like the East coast up here, humid and hot during the day, then the clouds roll in during the afternoon for a storm in the evening. Climate Change is real. Want to fix it, stop voting all of these idiots into the senate and house. Don't cast a single ballot for any Republican or Democratic candidate. They have all had many chances and have failed us. Many times.

 

Yeah, I live a few hours north of you, near Mt. Shasta, and in the 30 years my family has lived here I've never seen conditions this bad.  

 

Just a few examples:

-  This past winter Mt. Shasta ski resort opened for maybe 2 weeks, and even at that, only 1 chair lift was open.  The other ski resort I grew up skiing at, Mt. Ashland (about 40 min. north, just across the Oregon border), wasn't able to open at all.  

-  I've never seen Mt. Shasta's snowcap so small during the summer months.  

-  As of yesterday, we currently have 26 wildfires in Siskiyou County alone.

-  With the water levels in lakes and flow in rivers and creeks so low (thereby creating many more areas than usual of stagnant water), the health department is receiving an unprecedented number of cases of water-borne illnesses.

 

And the list goes on and on and on...  it's pretty scary.  

 

Even scarier, however, is the number of people who continue to deny the change that is going on right in front of our eyes.  This shouldn't be a partisan issue.  But unfortunately (like everything else that involves greed and power) it has become one, with both sides engaging in petty bickering, absurd rhetoric and taking cheap shots at each other from the most visible political stage in Washington to this very thread.  It's pathetic.  

Edited by Special K
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we are talking weather where we live...

Northern VA has enjoyed an unusually cool summer, only a handful of days over 90 so far. Precipitation seems about normal. I recall last summer being about the same and of course last winter was probably one of the coldest on average. I quite enjoy the weather that we've been having so I enjoy it.

I'm not denying global warming but I'm saying that local examples are not a way to prove global warming exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I live a few hours north of you, near Mt. Shasta, and in the 30 years my family has lived here I've never seen conditions this bad.  

and taking cheap shots at each other from the most visible political stage in Washington to this very thread.  It's pathetic.

 

 

were they there for the severe winter drought of 1976-77? 

not trying to argue just looking for input

 

add

we used to go there every summer and quit after that, not that I minded since I hate snow. :)

need to go back with the wife since she has never been,and it is beautiful 

Edited by twa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.