Heat wave in Europe!

[Natoma]

The melting of the poles is indeed caused by the increasing global temperature. However, ironically, it is that very increasing global temperature that most scientists agree may be the catalyst to throw us into a premature ice age, due to the factors I laid out earlier.

Global Warming causing cooler temperatures, or worse, an ice age? Certainly.

It is certainly true that the earth has gone through these warming and cooling trends before. However, the data wrt human intervention shows a clear trend of human intervention speeding up this process, maybe even faster than our climate can safely acclimate to.

 

[Fred]

To be precise actually the poles are COOLING, not warming. Its the outskirts that are warming, the interior is thawing... The rate integral is negative though.

 

[PC-Engine]

Time to powerup the Earth Simulator

 

[Humus]

Global warming or not, as said, better safe than sorry. There are plenty of other reasons why we should be careful with what kind of crap we fill the atmosphere with, such as we are getting more prone to getting cancer and stuff.
Anyway, may mention without neccesarily implying anything that I definitely have seen myself that the temperature in Sweden is going up. The last summer was the hottest in a very long time, this year it was even hotter. The rivers are like dry, well not really, but the water level is much lower. At some places you can see meters of land nearby the rivers that normally should be covered with water. Electricity is going to be expensive this winter

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Global warming or not, as said, better safe than sorry.

Indeed.

I'd rather play it safe...and keep our economies as robust as possible while having reasonable environmental control.

Vs. being sorry that we cause potentially huge economic hardships, and all the pain and misery that that comes with it. And then finding out that it was all for naught...or worse...that we actully did more to encourage "bad" climatic change by taking "action" than we would have by staying the course.

The point is, NOBODY wants "climactic meltdown", anymore than anyone wants economic meltdown.

It's that doing things like significantly reducing "human made" CO2 emissions doesn't come without its own cost, and costs that most people don't consider until it hits them in the face...and bitch and moan about it.

There are plenty of other reasons why we should be careful with what kind of crap we fill the atmosphere with, such as we are getting more prone to getting cancer and stuff.

Agreed. We should be mindful about what we put into the air, water, earth, etc. There's a difference between that, and commiting to making radical and expensive changes based on at best questionable science.

Electricity is going to be expensive this winter

Why the long face? Expensive electricity curbs consumption, which is exactly what you want. Are you saying you desire less consumption or more efficient consumption as a whole.....as long as you don't have to personally sacrifice for it?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Damnit...I said I wasn't going to get dragged into this.... :?

 

[Humus]

Electricity is going to be expensive this winter

Why the long face? Expensive electricity curbs consumption, which is exactly what you want. Are you saying you desire less consumption or more efficient consumption as a whole.....as long as you don't have to personally sacrifice for it?

Uhm, I don't get this argument. Of course I'm sad knowing that electricity will be expensive, cause I can consume less for my money. The ideal would be infinite resources of electricity at a price of zero. Expensive and limited electricity is farther from the ideal than cheap and available.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Uhm, I don't get this argument. Of course I'm sad knowing that electricity will be expensive, cause I can consume less for my money.

Exactly. But given your stance on global warming / C02 emissions, you should be more than willing to consume less for your money, given that the end result lower emissions.

So you should be happy to pay more for your electricity, because that means moving in the direction of lower emissions.

Expensive and limited electricity is farther from the ideal than cheap and available.

That's only from a pure capitalist point of view.

What if "expensive and limited" electricity is a consequence of lowering emissions targets?

 

[Moffell]

Joe, you missed that Humus complained about low water levels. Consider the fact that Sweden get's over 50% of it's electricity from water dams this is a serious problem. The other half comes from nuclear power more or less with some wind, virtually no coal and only some gas. Not that there is any reason you should be aware of this. Oh btw good luck saving on electricity when it's -40 degrees outside. Wool socks can only do so much.

As for when it comes to economical responsibility I'd say better start now when we have time. Creating alternative energy systems is expensive as hell so it's far better to take it slow than being forced to implement it fast, because the consequences would be too dire not to, later. Expanding the old energy systems is in this aspect not responsible though it may be necessary for other reasons which of course varies with the interest groups.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, you missed that Humus complained about low water levels.

No, I didn't miss it. It's not relevant to this discussion.

Consider the fact that Sweden get's over 50% of it's electricity from water dams this is a serious problem.

I'm not saying it's not a serious problem...but that's simply a risk that you take by getting a large portion of energy from water power.

In other words...different sources of energy each carry their own benefits / risks.

The other half comes from nuclear power more or less with some wind, virtually no coal and only some gas.

That's fine....I guess you're less concerned about Chernobyl (which is a "proven" risk,) than carbon emissions. Again...that's fine. You are making some balance between cost, availability, reliability, environmental risk, etc.

Must the balance that we choose be the same as yours? Is there not a rational argument for a different balance?

If you had NO hydroelectric power, and all nuclear....would you be concerned about water levels impacting electric cost? Nope. But you traded that off for "less risk" of a Chernyobyl repeat, by having fewer / smaller nuclear facilities.

Not that there is any reason you should be aware of this. Oh btw good luck saving on electricity when it's -40 degrees outside. Wool socks can only do so much.

Well then...if it's that much of an issue, why such a large reliance on hydroelectric power? Are you not willing to actullay take the cons (less reliable power generation) with the pros? (Lower C02 emissions?)

As for when it comes to economical responsibility I'd say better start now when we have time. Creating alternative energy systems is expensive as hell so it's far better to take it slow than being forced to implement it fast...

Yes, I agree with you. It's not like we're not researching and all kinds of newer technologies. Just don't Force them on us too fast, when it's too expensive.

Expanding the old energy systems is in this aspect not responsible though it may be necessary for other reasons which of course varies with the interest groups.

One such interest goup being every one who pays an electric bill.

 

[Humus]

As I see it, little water in the dams only causes the nuclear power plants to have to be utilized at their full capasity. What's left to fill the need will be imported from Denmark, which will be from burning coal. Their own production are done in modern facilities that are fairly clean, though if the demand from Sweden is high they will use their older much less clean facilities too. If the water levels on the other hand would be high we might have been able to even turn off some nuclear power plant or run some at half-speed.

 

[Kyyla]

Chernobyl was really pushed to the limit. I don't see how that could happen in a modern facility.

And Joe, you seem to have quite a narrow perspective. I bet you didn't believe in the ozone hole either.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Chernobyl was really pushed to the limit. I don't see how that could happen in a modern facility. And Joe, you seem to have quite a narrow perspective. I bet you didn't believe in the ozone hole either.

Anything can happen in a "modern facility." It's ultimately another facility run by humans with redunidant mechanical and computer safeguards to try and prevent things from going wrong. Of course, there is only a finite and limited amounts of things that we can do. There is always some sort of risk...including risk of complete catastrophy.

You seem to have a narrow perspective: I bet you didn't believe Chernobyl happened?

As I see it, little water in the dams only causes the nuclear power plants to have to be utilized at their full capasity. What's left to fill the need will be imported from Denmark, which will be from burning coal.

As I see it, you are blatantly environmentally irresponsible. How dare you even think of tapping coal burning plants in any capacity? And it's worse....you put the immediate environmental effects of coal burning not on yourself, but on Denmark. All for what? Cheaper and more readilty available energy? You selfish pig!

 

[Kyyla]

Anything can happen in a "modern facility." It's ultimately another facility run by humans with redunidant mechanical and computer safeguards to try and prevent things from going wrong. Of course, there is only a finite and limited amounts of things that we can do. There is always some sort of risk...including risk of complete catastrophy.

"With the invention of the umbrella the risk of getting wet was born." From the Time just a few weeks ago.

 

[Humus]

As I see it, you are blatantly environmentally irresponsible. How dare you even think of tapping coal burning plants in any capacity? And it's worse....you put the immediate environmental effects of coal burning not on yourself, but on Denmark. All for what? Cheaper and more readilty available energy? You selfish pig!

I do understand that smilie, though anyway, I'm not placing blame anywhere, just stating what's going to happen. From an environment point of view it's better if the dams are full. The damages caused by building these facilities in the rivers are already done, no additional damage (that I know of anyway) is caused from now on by their pure existance. Now that they are there the more they can be utilized the better. Now if energy consumption can be lowered, which will also bring prices down, that's good. Private household usage is not the largest consumer though, it's the industry. Like the large SSAB steel industry facility here in town. They need to melt the steel, and that requires a fatass amount of power, they can't lower the heat just to reduce their power usage. Though things can be made more efficient though, and things like the spill heat can be used, and in the case of SSAB it's used to heat an whole area of houndreds of houses nearby.

 

[Deepak]

Just saw that Paris and Rome touched 40C ! Though 40C is considered normal here in India....New Delhi touches 46C in summer.