Pope calls for end to fossil fuels

a reply to: dismanrc

Except that the entire Apostolic Palace is a support system for one man, guest house or not.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Wait you mean it's disgusting when humans die? We all die, humans kills most of the living things on this earth, we poison nature, we war, yet when someone says nuke it, and leave a world that's still alive for our children you say disgusting. It's double standards, we need to save the planet but I really don't want to change. The option of nuclear holocaust is a last resort, if it happens, it means YOU #ed up.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JDmOKI
Sounds like you're making this personal because the pope happens to be a Christian leader.

Because he is a hypocritical religious leader (I think that may be redundant). If he was so keen on reducing a massive carbon footprint he would move to a smaller residence.

Is that right? Or not...........

]There will "be no 16th-century polished marble floors or roof terrace with unmatched views of
Rome" for the "least popey Pope in papal history," says Simon Usborne at Britain's The Independent, at least not outside of office hours: Francis will use the papal apartment as his workspace, to receive official guests and handle papal business. But he'll live in the antiseptic, institutional hotel with other guests, eating in a communal dining room and celebrating mass with Vatican groundskeepers, domestic staff, and other low-level workers —

theweek.com...

Go after religion, fine; go after the Vatican, there is a case for that certainly, but to demonize this particular human being is baseless. There is nothing on which to base this criticism.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Does he or does he not live in the Apostolic Palace?

I do not care if he thinks he is Popey Potter and lives under the stairs, he still lives there. The place is sprawling and in case you missed it they spent $700,000+ PER PERSON to make the Vatican 'green'.

[imho]

Recent developments in this thread are a perfect example of shooting the messenger.

[/imho]

Of course, the same can be said of the international science community and any politician/religious leader who takes heed of that science.

ho hum

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: dismanrc

Except that the entire Apostolic Palace is a support system for one man, guest house or not.

How do you figure that? It's a city. Maybe they should close the white house, and Obama can conduct his business on a campground. This is silly talk.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

How do you figure that? It's a city. Maybe they should close the white house, and Obama can conduct his business on a campground. This is silly talk.

Vatican City is a city*, the Apostolic Palace is just one part of it.


* and by city it is a city in name only, your local park is larger.

Maybe they should close the white house...

One could only wish.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
I didn't miss it, yes I saw your figures, however they are essentially crap-shoot figures, and don't mean much to me. In other words, I don't really give a rat's derriere about those figures, sorry.
************

One of my favorite stories about the Pope, is that when he first moved in, he crept down to the Vatican kitchen after other staff were sleeping, and packed up a bag with food; then drove into poor areas, and distributed it to the needy. He was driving his security crazy!

He's trying to set a good example, along with making prudent decisions, and making his point that we are all equal and worthy of love.

I realize I have a quote from him as my signature, although I am not Catholic, but certainly he has a great deal to teach. As I said, I understand if you want to go after religion, but to go after this particular individual is simply misinformed.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
I didn't miss it, yes I saw your figures, however they are essentially crap-shoot figures, and don't mean much to me. In other words, I don't really give a rat's derriere about those figures, sorry.

I do not know what you mean by a 'crap shoot', they are actual hard dollar numbers spent to make the Vatican 'green' based on the 836 residents who live there.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
I've never really paid much attention to Pope's, to be honest. But before you slam-dunk him try to read up a little on who he is as a man. I believe we have someone special in our midst.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

But the poor, the homeless, the starving people of the world can all suffer a little more comfortably knowing that six hundred million dollars was spent to make the environment in which they suffer marginally 'greener'.

How can one put a price tag on that? Please excuse me while I vomit.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Temudjin
Even tho we are on different teams doesnt mean i dont have masonry friends, with a certain attribute.

Yup, I am on team 'Common Sense' and you seem to be on team 'WTF?'.

I have to say, when I read this last night I laughed until my eyes teared up.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Keep talking about it. Let the researchers know when you're ready to do something about it.

If only it were that simple...........

Does this mean the new pope mobile will be a Prius?

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
I've never really paid much attention to Pope's, to be honest. But before you slam-dunk him try to read up a little on who he is as a man. I believe we have someone special in our midst.

I did, however until he actually takes up exactly what the Catholic Church teaches I find him to be hypocritical.

Have you ever visited the Vatican and viewed the immense accumulation of wealth that is on display?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I know. Imagine what you could have done with $600,000,000 for those who are truly impoverished?

Jesus would puke, and not just a little in his mouth either.

a reply to: mc_squared

Yes, that was a rather over-the-top response, but when you suggest, even in a passing remark, that it is remotely practical to consider the entire area of the globe, well, you can't reasonably expect a different response.

BTW, let's stick to either energy or power units, K? I can work in either; I just figured most people are more familiar with watts than joules.

My point was that the global energy budget from solar radiation is irrelevant. We're not going to cover the globe (or even an appreciable part of it) with solar cells and live in cold darkness underneath. We have to remain grounded in the fact that we can get only about 200W from a square meter maximum. For a 500MW plant, that comes to, let's see, 3.5 million square meters of ground coverage normal to the solar radiation. That's about a kilometer and a half square, or close to a mile square.

That's actually do-able.

My second point, which you keep trying to obfuxcate, is that this square mile of PV cells is not going to give you 500MW of output power. There are power losses in any system this side of Hogwarts. The ratings you refer to concern the balancing of the power loads, a subject a little too deep to get into here. I am speaking of energy losses through transmission (that's a square mile of connecting wires and wires have resistance), conversion (inverters), storage (no battery is 100% efficient), and transmission to the grid (which is, according to your second kink, yes, 97% or so efficient).

When you consider the cost of the land, the cost of the PV cells, the cost of the supporting structures, the cost of maintenance, the cost of conversion, and the cost of operation, solar remains the highest cost per watt of any of the more viable technologies. It is very easy to break things down and quote high efficiency ratings from certain stages of the process, but what matters in the end is the bottom line: how much land do you need, how much money does it cost, to produce 1 kW of power?

And of course, there's the reliability factor... last I heard, sertious solar plants had some sort of backup generation capability... oil, gas, coal, whatever. I submit that a better approach is to construct the more mundane plants and supplement with solar. Same result, but the connotation becomes that of additions to existing plants rather than construction of new plants. Semantics, maybe, but the change in connotation to those with the money to actually build a plant might make some difference.

Now, a side note: I agree that these discussions hold much promise for constructive discussion, and that they are quite often derailed. I do not believe demanding that one is always right and backing that assertion up with wild statements like "you realize how much that is globally" is a productive way to foster such.

Good luck in your studies. A suggestion: pay close attention to Euler's Formulas.

TheRedneck

a reply to: dismanrc

Ah, yes, the dreaded connotation... you probably realize that is is technically appropriate to call a car motor a reactor, since it suports the reaction of gasoline with air.

Thanks for the link and name. I honestly haven't paid much attention to fusion techn ology in several years, since it appeared no real progress was being made. Maybe it's time I took a look. Fusion is certainly a lot less dangerous than fission, and does not hold the same potential for war mechanisms via waste products... with the present state of humanity, I would say that is a big plus for it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

If only it were that simple...........

It very well could be.

It has been my experience that one cannot do a thing at the same time one talks about doing a thing.

TheRedneck

The Pope is one of the world's most influential person and I believe he is right about fossil fuels.

It is good, enlightening to see such a powerful person speak up about the reality of fossil fuels and the true costs that extracting and burning such fuels have on this planet.

We have the technology now, it is up to us to utilize it.