Excellent post (as usual)
by SixShutouts66 (2024-01-30 19:56:45)

In reply to: A few thoughts on this issue  posted by EmilT76


What seems to get lost in the global warming discussion is that it should involve science plus engineering and economics. All too often I see zealous and well-meaning efforts to transition very rapidly to renewable energy. In many cases it seems tyhat large-scale production is not ready yet or the costs to transition too soon outweigh the benefits (e.g. all-electric heating).

As a side note, the linked article mentioned one reason for the delay is to try and ensure exportds don't create LNG shortages within the US.


The zealous efforts are not always well-meaning.
by SorinBasement  (2024-01-31 09:58:21)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

This is a political football, with much political capital at stake, both literally and figuratively. The cost of a rapid and sudden change to green energy is high, which means there are those who stand to gain from it. Their political influence is a source of concern.


I was somewhat glad to not have all-electric heat here
by ravenium  (2024-01-31 00:03:08)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

During our ice storm. We were toasty and our fireplace was awesome. Our power never went out but if it had (like much of the metro area) we'd have been in trouble. I like the idea of heat pumps but I'm pondering the idea of a gas heat backup one.

Rant:

From an overall layman's viewpoint, it always feels like I'm torn in a push-pull between climate deniers and climate alarmists.

In this corner, we have people who breathlessly post articles about how we're 7 years from a point of no return, which quite frankly is pretty spooky (if taken on the face). We get demonstrative protests from the Thunbergs of the world, who appear to be immune from any criticism. Every major weather event is "extreme" and must be accompanied by a lecture. We must immediately go 110% all in tomorrow or we're doomed. It's never corporations' fault, it's consumers - stoves, lawns. No baby steps are acceptable.

In the other corner, we have "naaah, it's all hyperbole" people who have decided we don't have to do anything to reduce our climate impact lest we upset or change industries. Everything is apparently some economic scam or hoax. And if the Democrats like it, it must be bad (etc).

Somewhere in between is reality. Technology should march forward and improve our lives. We should strive to reduce our impact on the planet in achievable ways. We should constantly be looking for ways to improve.

We must also look at how we're going to adapt. If we truly are not the masters of our own destiny, we must. For example, certain weather events are discernibly trending worse - forest fires in particular thrive on hotter and drier weather. Rather than print the 80th article about "climate refugees", how about we talk about how we can reduce the impact of forest fires?

Some other ranty suggestions:

- gas is still better than petroleum for the environment. Ask the cruise ship industry. Stop attacking any measures other than absolute ones.
- Move away from single use containers of all types where possible.
- Review and improve recycling efforts. No more of this "nah, we tried" can kicking about plastic.
- Nuclear. Finger wagging about EVs when your state's electricity runs on coal is hypocritical.