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.

 

Why NO Mention of Carbon Offsets or Credits? A Security Threat Assessment of Global Climate Change

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Thorium is a pipe dream at this point.




posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Waterglass

Yep, 100% BS liberal drivel report, using weak-minded and outright false "national security" arguments to try to give this bastard child of a report and the related whore climate-freak religion some (unwarranted) legitimacy.

Only the low IQ crowd will be fooled by this "report"...
edit on 26-2-2020 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

While it is true that Thorium (the cleaner nuclear solution) has yet to achieve commercial-grade power generation, it is still a significant area of R&D in over a dozen first world countries, including the US.

But your point is well taken and I concede my first-hand knowledge in this area to be lacking. Even science writers like me are overly specialized (my beat is in a tiny subset of Ai).



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Engineering is not the same thing as science. If not science then what are you suggesting? Are you suggesting we base public policy by who yells the loudest or who spends the most money on propaganda?

Rather than me defend NASA I would like to know what your public policy position in on global warming. Just show some backbone for change and say, "I think we should do nothing about global warming" if that is the public policy you suggest.

I gave you my public policy suggestion. I think our government should fund research into alternative energy solutions to fossil fuel. We depend too much on fossil fuel anyway. It's not just a pollution problem. You have to take into account the costs of defending the Middle East which is a huge subsidy. I think it would ultimately be much cheaper for the country to get away from using fossil fuel as soon as possible. Plus there are major health concerns with drinking water getting contaminated from MTBE leaking from storage tanks.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: Bluntone22

While it is true that Thorium (the cleaner nuclear solution) has yet to achieve commercial-grade power generation, it is still a significant area of R&D in over a dozen first world countries, including the US.


It will never happen in the United States. China, India, or Japan will perfect it.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

The funny thing is that regular nuclear isn't really dirty either.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Upwards of 90-percent less carbon than any other method of generating electricity, IIRC.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Solving problems do in fact lead to more problems which is always left out of the discussion. Even if we found a way to create cheap clean energy today we will be facing entirely new problems. People will not use less energy. They will use more. The money people save will be spent on more consumer goods, not less.

Same could be said for medical breakthroughs. If more lives are saved that's more people on the planet consuming and polluting for longer periods of time.

I'm not saying it's hopeless, just that many things are not being addressed, mainly what is the goal of climate change purveyors. Is it to have more people on the planet? Is it more people consuming more energy and goods. Certainly seems that is the case. That to me seems like a worse scenario than we have now.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Like this green solution?

www.americanexperiment.org...



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: dfnj2015
Multivariable. Say it with me. I know you can do it.
You say you want billions spent in researching cleaner energy to mitigate atmospheric CO2. Great! Please explain how electric cars have done anything to help the problem so far?
Do you see the problem here? The people who disagree with you don't even necessarily disagree with your core-premise. We should clean up our act. Pretending that we can mitigate all off the effects with "green energy" is not science. You are still going to need higher seawalls (engineering). You still need better and more efficient (by several orders of magnitude) alternatives to fossil fuels.


Electric cars have not helped the problem because the electricity is produced using fossil fuels.

I think we can both agree ethanol production is just a boondoggle and it is most likely not net-energy-positive. Burning ethanol probably creates MORE polution not less. You have to take into account the carbon footprint of everything that goes into corn production which is never part of the equation when they talk about burning ethanol.

I think we can both agree electric cars have way less parts than ones based on gasoline. There is no question transportation is going to cause pollution. Everything we do causes pollution and a carbon footprint.

It seems to me what you are saying is regardless if we use fossil fuel or some alternative, we will have the same amount of pollution. I disagree. I think burning fossil fuel by itself causes pollution. Nuclear power and solar power are way less polluting.

The amount of pollution making a nuclear power plant or producing solar panels is kind of a wash in this equation. Creating and running a refinery is not exactly pollution free either.


originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
What is your opinion on thorium reactors?


I think thorium reactors could be a viable solution for the World's energy production. Uranium is about expensive to mine as platinum. Thorium is about as expensive to mine as lead. Thorium is everywhere even on the moon.

I also like what the Germans are doing:



The German stellarator is the most advanced piece of technology ever created by man. It's just an amazing piece of government subsidized engineering and research.

Physicists confirm the precision of magnetic fields in the most advanced stellarator in the world

Based on the fidelity, I don't understand why they are moving so slow. This technology could be commercial within a few years if needed. Clearly it works as designed.

"Results showed a remarkable fidelity to the design of the highly complex magnetic field. "To our knowledge," the authors write of the discrepancy of less than one part in 100,000, "this is an unprecedented accuracy, both in terms of the as-built engineering of a fusion device, as well as in the measurement of magnetic topology.""



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

There are also many economic factors people tend to forget with elimination of fossil fuels.
Taxes collected on the sale for one but an even bigger problem of replacement is the by products of cracking crude oil.

Tar to petroleum jelly
Lubricants
Etc
Etc
Etc


Those will need a viable replacement



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Like this green solution?

www.americanexperiment.org...


Honestly, what is your public policy position on this issue? Are you for or against pollution? If expended wind turban blades are really a concern of yours then why is one form of pollution more important than another? We can actually be objective here on measuring the carbon footprint:

Environmental Costs of Refineries

Or is your main goal and purpose to just score cheap political points? If Republicans supported cleaning up refinery pollution and environment protection laws would you support it? What really matters to you. Party or public health?



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: dfnj2015

There are also many economic factors people tend to forget with elimination of fossil fuels.
Taxes collected on the sale for one but an even bigger problem of replacement is the by products of cracking crude oil.

Tar to petroleum jelly
Lubricants
Etc
Etc
Etc

Those will need a viable replacement


I'm not a big believer in the idea we have to dump crude oil on our beaches in order to keep seal and bird scrubbers employed.

The idea we should keep polluting with fossil fuel because of its taxation is a strange argument to me.

So you love fossil fuel more than anything. Just out of curiosity, why do you care where your energy comes from? Does it really matter as long as it's cheap and convenient and allows you to use it the way you want?


edit on 26-2-2020 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

We have problems but lumping it all into two words again like the 70's did in "Global Warming" is the wrong approach. There are some simple things we could do right now that would have a massive impact but nobody wants to do it.

One; high tax on junk mail instead of subsidizing it. I don't know how much paper I throw out in a year but I bet it's no less than a compressed paper bail. That's millions of compressed bails of paper (dead trees) and wasted fuel transporting the paper to landfills.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

I'm for reality.
We have absolutely no viable solution to replacement of fossil fuels.
Wind and solar are a joke.
Their reliability is terrible.

Nuclear and hydro are the best alternatives.
Hydro is mostly maxed out because of geography.
Nuclear is the boogieman.

Yes I want to reduce pollution but I don't want to bankrupt the county in a half ass attempt that is destined to fail.

Politics has no bearing on my viewpoint.
Chemistry and physics don't care what any political party thinks.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Solving problems do in fact lead to more problems which is always left out of the discussion. Even if we found a way to create cheap clean energy today we will be facing entirely new problems. People will not use less energy. They will use more. The money people save will be spent on more consumer goods, not less.

Same could be said for medical breakthroughs. If more lives are saved that's more people on the planet consuming and polluting for longer periods of time.

I'm not saying it's hopeless, just that many things are not being addressed, mainly what is the goal of climate change purveyors. Is it to have more people on the planet? Is it more people consuming more energy and goods. Certainly seems that is the case. That to me seems like a worse scenario than we have now.


I appreciate you arguments. Just so you know every country with high levels of female literacy becomes birth rate neutral, barely positive, and even slightly negative. I don't think birth rates should be an argument over what we use as the main source of energy for the country.

Are you someone who believes fossil fuels are the only answer no matter what?

I don't really care where my electricity comes from or how it is generated. Same thing with cars. If the energy source of my car were just as convenient as using gasoline I don't really car as long as the car moves forward. Are you someone who MUST use gasoline no matter what?


edit on 26-2-2020 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
a reply to: dfnj2015

We have problems but lumping it all into two words again like the 70's did in "Global Warming" is the wrong approach. There are some simple things we could do right now that would have a massive impact but nobody wants to do it.

One; high tax on junk mail instead of subsidizing it. I don't know how much paper I throw out in a year but I bet it's no less than a compressed paper bail. That's millions of compressed bails of paper (dead trees) and wasted fuel transporting the paper to landfills.


I would love to have a public policy ending ALL junk mail!!!

I also would not like to have MTBE pollution in my drinking water.

Are the two mutually exclusive or not?



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

As I said, there is just no way the solution for a viable replacement of fossil fuels is going to come from Unites States.

India, China, and Japan are investing billions in research into viable alternatives to fossil fuel.

My bet is on China. China has the most to gain from stopping the use of all its coal burning electric plants.

Just remember, the first country to stop giving trillions of dollars to Saudi Arabia becomes the preeminent super-power in the World!


edit on 26-2-2020 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

As I pointed out, it's not just power production that needs a replacement.

Even if cold fusion technology was perfected tommorow we still need replacements for all the petrochemicals.

Gears need greased
Roads need paved
Solvents are needed
Plastics need polymer

Trillion dollar industries will need solutions.

Keep digging but don't hold your breath for any real world solutions any time soon.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

I wanted to buy the most efficient solar panel for my home in 2015. My search led to me to an Australian firm that was already producing solar powered buses via their panels for either Thailand or China. It would also charge the bus as the bus was being driven.

I tried to buy but USA has a ban on the importation of same to USA. So Obama who? Elon Musk what? Greta never?

The World’s First 100% Solar Powered Bus

Tindo: The Solar Powered Bus



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join