| SpokenTruth said: (1): Holy....you do realize that is the very purpose of the Paris Accord that Trump is making is pull out of? It was to allow poorer nations to continue using coal while other nations transitioned to renewables. |
There's less potential for renewable energy in the US than you think ... (heck the US isn't even the biggest offender when it comes to emissions, China has 2x higher emission per energy consumption and compared to the US)
Despite the fact that China has a higher portion of it's electricity generation come from renewables than the US, they have 2x higher emissions per generation so the US isn't doing all that bad ... (looking at absolute emissions isn't the best way to do a comparison, a better measure would be is how efficient each country is when consuming energy such as emissions vs kW/h)
The US will have capitalized as much hydropower they can get their hands on which stands at 6.5% of their electricity generation. The only other source of renewable energy that has potential to meet capacity is wind energy which currently stands at 5.5% of electricity generation but even then you'd have to move to the middle of america to reap the most benefits ... (Solar power is fairly ignore worthy at this point)
How do you propose we can realistically make up our lost 30% of the power generation due to coal ?
| SpokenTruth said: (2): Have you not paid attention to any climatologist over the past 4-5 decades? This planet does not stand a chance for survival if we continue our rate of coal usage and the hinderance to cleaner options. We will leave it a uninhabitable wasteland long before the sun uses up the last of its hydrogen and the helium starts fusing into carbon. At that point we have a red giant star with Earth inside it. And we really won't have to wait that long. The sun's luminosity will be 10% greater in 1 billion years than now and that will be enough to render Earth dead. |
I have and they usually don't have anything conclusive to say ...
The rest of what you said is nothing but alarmism. We're literally at no risk for a runaway greenhouse effect. This is even something Stephen Hawking, a renowned theoretical physicist got hilariously wrong!
If we were at immediate risk of runaway global warming like we see with Venus today it would've happened long ago during the paleocene–eocene thermal maximum where CO2 concentrations were five times higher than it is today not too recently. To even trigger runaway global warming today, you'd at least need CO2 concentrations of above at least 10000 ppm (that's still not enough) and we don't even have enough fossil fuels reach that high either ... (I can see us reaching there if we burn every organic material including the last lifeform out there but even that's a stretch)
There's a reason why life still existed before even with CO2 concentrations being 10x higher in the past ...
There's almost no chance of us creating a wasteland before the sun does in a billion years ... (the wait is longer than you think)
| SpokenTruth said: (3): Please provide proof that renewable energies make the human race poorer. |
Easy, it's just one less resource that you're able to use for energy ...
