The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

For me, to be allowed to marry the couple should get psychiatric evaluation to detect dangerous disturbs, and inform the persons about the serious problems the other can have. This would save the life of many women and some man.

For other side, psychiatry it's still quite a sh...t in many pointd, even in 21 century. But something should be done to detect sociopaths and other dangerous people.

And so,the guy doesn't necessarily abuse his wife,but he massacres his Coca Cola bottling plant employees or banana pickers on his corporate plantation.
Or a government throws a nice little war somewhere so his clients can demonstrate the killing potential of their exotic weapons systems, so as to secure purchasing agreements in the international arms bazzar.
In 'developed' nations,where violence goes up the highest levels of government,industry,and religion,what's the surprise when folks slap one another around? Or worse? It's our culture.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

There is always room for incentives before enforcements.

If you've read 'The Prince,' by Machiavelli you'll HOPE there's room for the incentives

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

But teens, despite most have no shame feeling to make sex or use drug or get drunk, can have shame feeling about to the doctor or gynecologist.

Next day pill should be selled easier. The pill to take in the following days after relation, in case of suspect there was risk of pregnancy. Not sure if I correct translated the name of the pill.
The good way to avoid abortion of fetus with brains: The period didn't came and she had relation without safe precaution? Take the pill.

A person,close to me,recommended mandatory vasectomies for all 12-year-old males.
When legally married,and with proof that the couple had a high degree of confidence that they could successfully raise a child to adulthood;at that time,a free, micro-surgical procedure would be performed to reverse the vasectomy,allowing for a family.
The need for abortion would essentially be eliminated,as there would be no unwanted pregnancy.
Convicted rapists would be handed over to Lorena Bobbitt.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

As I said, it's not clear that renewable energy will be a long term cost saving. If it were so now, then we'd just have renewables powering everything.

The health effects of fossil fuel use is not easy to quantify at all. In fact, most every economic and health metric is positively correlated with fossil fuel consumption. In other words, life expectancy has skyrocketed since the age of fossil fuels, and poverty has plummeted.

It's cut and dry that someone falling to their death from a wind turbine has been killed in service of renewable energy, or it's clear cut that a coal mine collapsing and killing a person is directly related to fossil fuels, but someone simply dying of cancer cannot be directly attributed to pollution. It may be easy to quantify fossil fuel related health problems if every other variable remained as it was, but instead every variable has changed.

Fossil fuels have without question resulted in a great good for human well-being. That isn't to deny the negative externalities, but there isn't even a debate about whether measurable things such as poverty and health have improved due to their use.

I'm not sure what the actual percentages would be today,but if we hadn't had fossil-fuel-industry-financed disinformation campaigns for decades now,I suspect we'd be further along the path towards renewables.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

That's a very "glass 2% full" type of view. Keep in mind when you see green for renewables that this includes wood for heat and biomass energy which even in green Germany is 2/3 of the renewable total.
.

.

.
Just for electric energy in China, Solar and wind cannot even keep up with projected growth over the next 30 years. Primary energy consumption will be 3 times more than this and none of the additional energy in that category would be from solar or wind.
.

.

In light of decades of climate denial and paid disinformation campaigns,we might have seen a larger fraction represented by renewables by now.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I didn't got it...

I recommend the book,'The Prince',by Machiavelli.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

This report has some interesting information.
.
World Energy 2016-2050: Annual Report » Peak Oil Barrel
.
I keep seeing studies like these that show that solar electricity is not that cheap.
.

.

I would say that the numbers are contextual,conditional,and misleading for what they don't say.
And it doesn't matter what solar costs.Combustion needs to end as soon as possible and some of the existing carbon removed from the atmosphere.
And that can't happen with natural gas.We can't afford it's 'cheapness' if it costs us our habitat.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

Lucky! My savings account only pays 0.01%! I have looked into better accounts, but they still do not pay as well as my debts charge.

I'm getting 1.75% on a 2-year CD at a local Teachers Credit Union.
It would be higher in an index fund.
Higher yet in a mutual fund.
30-yr Treasury Bonds were close to 3% a few days ago.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Thats more green washing.
That article is going off installed capacity not actual production.

Yeah it costs half as much per wat but solar only produces power 1/5 of the day.
Dollar for dollar production that solar costs at least double the price of coal.

If we're still talking about climate change,then it doesn't matter what the price of coal is.Or any hydrocarbon.And we've lost an entire generation in time arguing whether or not we're gonna bring back radium watch dials and a flat Earth.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

At least they found a solution for barbecue, even at night, instead of coal or gas :

Solar Stove Uses Salt to Stay Hot after Dark - BORGEN





But area for capturing the sun (looks the circle fresnel on the top), could be larger, to get more storage and more hour of use alfter sun goes out.

Would a similar idea works for home storage of electricity, being cheaper than bateries ?
Sure it would require a small turvine, to use the heat of sault to produce steam.

*The eutectic salt would not give back all that it had stored.
*Any heat loss of the stored energy would be an issue.
*There would be heat loss at the boiler heat exchanger.
*There would be losses across the turbo-generator.
*There would be losses at the cooling tower heat exchanger.
*There would be inefficiencies associated with the cooling tower fan
*Losses at any working fluid pumps.
I don't think you could beat the efficiency of existing battery technology.