Gas and coal are doing a great job .....except for the damage they are doing to the planet, damage to people's health etc.. Given the "business as usual" projections many parts of the planet will be unlivable by the end of the 21st century. That is not fear mongering it is just rational projection from today.

(Written on 30.01.2022)(Permalink)

With efficiency gains we are probably looking at a number around 50 to 75 Quads for US energy demand. The issue is: what are the alternatives? We simply can not keep pumping CO2 into the environment as we have been doing. We (the world) need to move much faster in removing fossil fuels from our energy mix. The good news is that renewable energy is now in many parts of the world the cheapest and is still dropping in price.

(Written on 30.01.2022)(Permalink)

True if we are trying to account for all the CO2 ...but if we are doing that we also need to include in the calculation for fossil fuels all the infrastructure that supports the delivery of fossil fuels. Also we can expect that a large part of the materials used in the batteries will be recycled so it all gets rather complicated.

(Written on 29.01.2022)(Permalink)

Eric: Have you actually read any of the climate research? The data supporting human caused climate change is just overwhelming. Literally thousands of scientists from many dozen countries have contributed to the conclusion that human release CO2 and other greenhouses gases (mostly methane) are causing significant changes to the planet's heat balance. It is simply stunning that anybody in 2022 can expound that somehow climate change is not real. Ignoring the problem is simply putting one's head in the sand and seriously delays us dealing with with the problem. While it is true that over the last +5,000 years our energy has been provided by releasing CO2.. unfortunately we have pretty much come to the end of that road and in the next 30 or so years have to transition away from fossil fuels. One can not navigate to the future by looking in the rear view mirror. Oh and by the way scientists HAVE measured the CO2 released by volcanoes and it is much, much smaller than

(Written on 29.01.2022)(Permalink)

I really doubt it would have been a "good Thing" if the market cratered. While there are certainly issues with the distribution of wealth it clearly would have damaged everybody if the stock market collapsed.

(Written on 29.01.2022)(Permalink)

While some of the points you make are valid, but a bit overstated. However I don't think the numbers for the number of reactors is correct. Firstly I am not aware of anybody has built, or is even thinking about, building 10GW reactors. Most are close to 1GWe. Also even without any efficiency gains from using electricity the ENTIRE US energy use ( ie generation, transportation, heating, manufacturing etc.) is < 100 Quads. Your numbers would put the total capacity above 200 Quads (1 Quad -1 Quintillion BTUs). For a good understanding of US energy flows see https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/charts/Energy/Energy_2020_United-States.png However long distance air travel IS a significant problem to get to zero. Sugar coating that fact does not help.

(Written on 29.01.2022)(Permalink)

I worked in IT for a major financial services firm in 1999. I can tell you for an actual fact that if we had not done a huge amount of coding changes EVERY SINGLE STOCK TRADE for the entire NY Stock Exchange would have failed a few days before the end of the year in 1999 (the trade settlement date (trade date +3) would have appeared to be before the trade date). If I remember correctly we had to be certified with the NYSE by mid year. There were literally millions of lines of code to change and hundreds of thousands of files to rebuild... just in our company alone. It was a massive effort to change all the programs and files and test the hell out of everything! The fact that there were so few problems is a testament to effort and diligence of thousands of developers, not that there wasn't an issue. I also know other IT folks in other industries had their own issues which in some cases required physical hardware upgrades as well as code changes. The comment by avionik99

(Written on 29.01.2022)(Permalink)

Well while not politely put I agree with the sentiment: the discussion should be about aviation. If you follow the thread it was not me that bought these spurious items into the thread and I stated that I thought they were inappropriate distraction from the issue at hand. However once people have made factually wrong statements and have basically lied about CRT etc. what is one to do? Allow those lies to lie there unchallenged as if they were true, or to point out the errors and lies in those statements? It would seem reasonable that you direct your comment to those that originally bought those items into the thread, not me.

(Written on 03.01.2022)(Permalink)

1) Still doesn't answer the question why when the thread is about aviation you want to talk about education. 2) While the right wing media and its fellow travelers keeps talking about the teaching of CRT in schools they don't actually provide any concrete evidence of such. SkyAware123 follows the same path. If teaching of CRT in schools was a real thing it would be logical the people who are making such a claim could provide real evidence of such. So far such evidence has not been presented. All that has been "presented" is a load of unsubstantiated claims. Any reasonable, factual, analysis shows this whole CRT thing is a manufactured issue to get the right wing base fired up. The "outrage" over the supposed teaching of CRT in schools is, at its core, deeply racist. 3) If the sentence of the third bullet makes no sense and/or is grammatically incorrect please explain why. It is pretty clear that most people posting about the teaching of CRT in schools do not seem to have a

(Written on 01.01.2022)(Permalink)

The long term effects of lead are pernicious. Way more than "a few" were damaged by lead from leaded gas. To get to the actual numbers (which surely is the important thing) : "The study dove into public health data spanning a decade, and found that children under the age of 18 living close to Reid-Hillview had blood lead levels over 1.8 micrograms per deciliter. In 3.2% of the children surveyed, that number was as high as 3.5 micrograms, and in 1.7% of children it was 4.5 micrograms. Average baseline lead levels in children across the U.S. are closer to 0.84 micrograms. So if you had children what would your response be to a facility that is significantly raising the lead levels in your children's blood?

(Written on 31.12.2021)(Permalink)