It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bernie Sanders: After Paris Attacks What Greatest Threat to America

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I agree the climate changes, but not with the man-made component. I have a natural distrust of Government and even more so for those that want to 'address global issues'. I don't think that any crisis will be wasted by the powers that be to separate the common man from his money and freedom and I definitely believe that regarding global warming.

I appreciate the response.
edit on 2015/11/15 by Metallicus because: Fixed Spelling Error




posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Whether you believe there's no need to smear him or not, that poster is clearly smearing him with far fetched fantasies.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, they do represent the workers. Now, is there corruption in said Unions? Of course! Where's there's money there's bound to be corruption but the wealthy are not funneling monies to Sanders via the Unions. In fact, with Sanders stance on the wealthy and Wall Street it's makes zero sense for any of them to be investing in Sanders in the first place! Especially since they have Hilary in their back pocket and front lining.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
What does a senator from Vermont have to do with China and India?

I'm sorry, but I am failing to see the connection attempted to be made by many posters.

So again - what does a senator from Vermont have to do with two completely sovereign nations, and their policies?



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Swills
Maybe Bernie is more interested in lowering all the blatant pollution going on world wide instead of finding that sweet spot on the thermostat.


Does he have a plan that gets the Chinese, Indians and other developing nations to follow his wishes?



Maybe you should educate yourself on all of the already occurring negotiations that include those countries, including everything from the UN 2030 agenda to the UNFCCC.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire
What does a senator from Vermont have to do with China and India?

I'm sorry, but I am failing to see the connection attempted to be made by many posters.

So again - what does a senator from Vermont have to do with two completely sovereign nations, and their policies?


That is not a logical point. The US is the most powerful country in the world, and has a large presence and influence in international policy, from economic to military.

If he is running for president of the US, he will be dealing with those countries all of the time....

Try again.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
The links are all about water. And like I said, I'm trying to find an old map I have years ago that showed them all. It's out there if you look.


The one link discussing the Caspian Sea is about gas pipelines running through it. The other does not mention pipelines at all. I do not see anything about 'water pipelines' nor are we in the Middle East for water.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
They're still working on it. The US not so much.


Wait. Did you just say India and China are working on the problem and we are not? The links I provided make it clear who is ramping up coal use and who is not and we are not the ones using more.


Regardless the US not doing anything even if China and India weren't is silly, even childish. If your roof is leaking you don't just walk around your house with an umbrella thinking there's nothing you can do to stop rain.


Once again, the point I am making, is that China and India do not care if Sanders is President as they have no intention of using less coal so what does that do to stave off the great national security threat?



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Nope, you're in the wrong. You should have checked your link. The price has dropped significantly in the last 9 years. The LCOE is calculated from 2006-2013.

Please educate yourself here.



The electricity sources which had the most decrease in estimated costs over the period 2010 to 2015 were solar photovoltaic (down 68%), onshore wind (down 51%) and advanced nuclear (down 20%).


Furthermore, this is referencing distribution at the utility level rates. Grid parity is reached sooner at the individual and community level years prior. Australia reached grid parity at the individual level in 2011
Germany was the first to reach grid parity at the utility level in 2013.

This is the estimated LCOE for the whole of the US by 2020

Low Aver High
Conventional Coal 87.1 95.1 119
Solar PV 97.8 125.3 193.3

Closing the gap



Another from 2014, same link you posted

Low High
Solar PV-Crystalline Utility Scale 72 86
Solar PV-Thin Film Utility Scale 72 86

Coal 66 151
edit on 15-11-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Maybe you should educate yourself on all of the already occurring negotiations that include those countries, including everything from the UN 2030 agenda to the UNFCCC.


Maybe you should try to operate in the real world where the decisions by India and China have already been made. Negotiations without any binding legislation (UN 2030 is non-binding) is just more political hot air as evidence by the fact that this summit took place in September and in November China issues 150+ coal fire plant licenses. Seems they are really onboard.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Swills
Maybe Bernie is more interested in lowering all the blatant pollution going on world wide instead of finding that sweet spot on the thermostat.


Does he have a plan that gets the Chinese, Indians and other developing nations to follow his wishes?



Maybe you should educate yourself on all of the already occurring negotiations that include those countries, including everything from the UN 2030 agenda to the UNFCCC.


Maybe you should educate yourself on all the so-called science that tell us that the world can't wait.

They are now the biggest polluters. If they don't curb their emissions/economies right along with the rest of the world, then climapocalypse will occur and we'll all be dead by then.

Not to mention that a non-binding agreement by a sovereign nation that only take effect in 15 years is about as good as the promise the Democrats made Reagan to secure the border in 5 years or so back when he made that Amnesty agreement. We can all point to that secure border ... can't we?
edit on 15-11-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Nope, you're in the wrong. You should have checked your link. The price has dropped significantly in the last 9 years. The LCOE is calculated from 2006-2013.

Please educate yourself here.


You should do the same. The link I provided uses 2015 data and shows that solar is still the most costly method per kilowatt hour.



Furthermore, this is referencing distribution at the utility level rates. Grid parity is reached sooner at the individual and community level years prior. Australia reached grid parity at the individual level in 2011
Germany was the first to reach grid parity at the utility level in 2013.


And? They are down the most because prior to solar just being costly, it was incredibly costly.

As for the individual level that is not how the majority of people who reside in cities can receive their power. When it can compete at that level on a per cost basis with other forms of generation, and minus the subsidies, it will make more sense.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


You should do the same. The link I provided uses 2015 data and shows that solar is still the most costly method per kilowatt hour.


Don't play me for a fool. I know which sides we originally drew, and that statement does not back yours.




And? They are down the most because prior to solar just being costly, it was incredibly costly.


...and my point becomes ever valid. The trend will continue, proving you false. In the near future, more areas will breach grid-parity. It's inevitable.


As for the individual level that is not how the majority of people who reside in cities can receive their power. When it can compete at that level on a per cost basis with other forms of generation, and minus the subsidies, it will make more sense.


You are misinterpreting what this means. It means panels on the rooftops, still hooked into the grid, and pushing back to it during peak production hours (usually). The subsidies have already been dropped from 30-10%, and the rate of decrease in prices has more than offset this drop in the last 18 months.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Don't play me for a fool. I know which sides we originally drew, and that statement does not back yours.


You are playing yourself, the info is in the link:


Projected LCOE in the U.S. by 2020 (as of 2015)
Power generating technology Average:
Solar Thermal 239.7
Conventional Coal 95.1


Which one costs more?




...and my point becomes ever valid. The trend will continue, proving you false. In the near future, more areas will breach grid-parity. It's inevitable.


Your point was that is was more cost effective NOW. It is not as evidenced by the above data.


You are misinterpreting what this means. It means panels on the rooftops, still hooked into the grid, and pushing back to it during peak production hours (usually). The subsidies have already been dropped from 30-10%, and the rate of decrease in prices has more than offset this drop in the last 18 months.


You cannot panel the roof of a high rise and have even remotely enough power for the residents/occupants. Call me when the subsidies are ZERO where they should be.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's entirely false. I hope you just goofed, instead of outright lied.



I countered your belief that no other energy source would become cheaper than coal in the near future. That is clearly what my posts are debating. You seem to have thought otherwise, for an unknown reason.

Most people are not in high rises, they are in homes which can take panels. You stated "most", and I have countered this with very basic reasoning.

To refresh your memory of which sides we are on from the get go, here is my original reply to a post made by you with a quoted snipped for the correct context.

Reply
edit on 15-11-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
That's entirely false. I hope you just goofed, instead of outright lied.



Huh? What you highlighted shows that solar costs more than coal.


I countered your belief that no other energy source would become cheaper than coal in the near future. That is clearly what my posts are debating. You seem to have thought otherwise, for an unknown reason.


I never said 'no other energy source will become cheaper than coal'. I said for India and China it is the cheapest method to generate electricity for their people.


Most people are not in high rises, they are in homes which can take panels. You stated "most", and I have countered this with very basic reasoning.


Most people in the United States live in cities, you know, those things with tall buildings as rural populations have been shrinking as of late. Additionally, for those who do own a home, they would have to opt to put these unattractive devices on their roofs. Personally I am glad I would not be able to even if I wanted to mar the appearance of my house by doing this.

And to refresh your memory you interjected into a conversation I was having with someone else about coal use in India and China.



edit on 15-11-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Huh? What you highlighted shows that solar costs more than coal.


Well at least that's not my point, surely you should realize that by now. It also points to what should be obvious from the grid-parity source I linked. Look at the lowest cost for solar PV vs highest cost for coal. You see how situations can arise where coal cost in a local area interacts with low cost for PV? That's where it's cheaper. Good thing I said it was trending towards more areas reaching grid parity, rather than it would be everywhere in the US within 5 years. Otherwise you would have a point.



Most people in the United States live in cities, you know, those things with tall buildings as rural populations have been shrinking as of late.


There's these things called houses, and they reside within urban metropolitan and city ordinances. Besides, it only takes a short period of time for the grid to reach the same LCOE.


Additionally, for those who do own a home, they would have to opt to put these unattractive devices on their roofs. Personally I am glad I would not be able to even if I wanted to mar the appearance of my house by doing this.


It's so not cool, I mean not at all a trendy thing to be green.

I'm gonna end this now, by having to pull your quote out directly.


originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

No. Coal is the cheapest method of producing electricity. Until the alternatives become cheaper, which does not appear likely any time soon, they will continue to burn coal at an increasing rate.






It appears to be trending towards the cheaper energy source.


edit on 15-11-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't think it's accurate to say that they don't intend to lower their coal use. They do. They are also working on solar and wind. India is currently, actively working on 100GW solar capacity.

The point is, India and China are already sitting down at the table and involved in the international dialogue and planning on energy and climate. They have acknowledged that climate change is a threat to the entire world.

Can Bernie Sanders make them adhere to his climate plan? No. No one can. That doesn't mean we should do nothing until they do. We are 2nd in carbon emissions, if we do anything to lower our emissions, we reduce the threat. We can do a lot more than we have been.
edit on 11/15/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I'm more worried about being asphyxiated by my cat's farts than terrorism OR global warming.

Although on a serious note, if I had to pick & choose between the two as a more pressing concern, global warming wins it.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

If you're frightened of either "terrorists" or "global warming", you've been tricked and it doesnt matter who gets to be president. They were both invented to scare the daylights out of you but neither is terribly likely to hurt you.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join