Climate Change Challenge!! $$$ 3

I'm sure you've seen it or will pretty soon!


And here we go again. I wonder if they'll give me the money if I give them the best solution:

"If you don't want climate to change, put it in a beaker with a controlled temperature water bath and monitor it for ever. Otherwise, do nothing and get it in your mind CLIMATE CHANGES!! So does life."

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

When humans interfere with nature, we end up with some big consaquences. I think the point should be; How do we minimize our impact on nature, and let it change natrualy....

i think he's got it right.

boobtube is blocked to me. Is that Crichton's?

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

So if humans are the problem, then is there a conclusion we should get rid of them?
Humans are part of nature, like it or not. The issue is we need solutions that don't break our economy, and are workable.

Wind farms worked well until someone discovered they kill birds. Hydroelectric works exect if you are a fish. Photovoltaic can actually change the climate, if applied in some places.

We do need solutions, but hitting the economy with a stick (tax) is not a solution in itself.

Hmmm, wind farms work as long as there is enough wind but not too much. Hydroelectrics tend to wreck a huge chunk of land (the actual lake the damn makes) and pollute the rivers downstream with silts, etc.....

You can, unfortunately, find flaws in every technology. Just have to come up with the plan, ahead of time, on how to manage the risks.

I agree, there is nor perfect solution and humans ARE part of nature.

Taxes... GIVE ME A BREAK!! since when have taxes worked to solve anything???? (other than bailing out businesses that did a poor job managing risks and running themselves, on purpose, to the ground)

cranky, as much as I would like to follow your idea and get rid of humans, usually the ones I'd like to get rid of are the ones that would make the call of whom to get rid of. So I discard the idea.

I still think that stationary energy generation should come from nuclear power and mobile energy (i.e. transport) should be hydrocarbon based.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

I don't want to get rid of humans.
I don't think we need more taxes.
Not in a house, not with a mouse, etc.

I agree there isen't a best solution for every situation.
Nuclear looks like a good BASE load energy solution for non-moble applications (can you believe someone wants to build a nuclear airplaine, I just don't see it flying).

Some wind, some hydro, some solar, isen't a bad mix.
But what about the application of time of use rates to help balance energy demand curves (I can do my loundry at Midnight).

Don't get me wrong, I believe a balanced approch, with nuclear as a base is a good model. And what little I know about moble energy sources the following sound good, H2, CH4, C2H6, or some mass transit system.
However, I do like mass transit, I just don't like the werdo's that ride it (I'll keep my car for now).

We need to increase the use of carbon fuels to accelerate the possible warming of Alaska so that drilling can take place in non arctic conditions.

I assume you are being sarcastic.
From what I understand parts of Alaska become swamps without the cold.

But I haven't yet seen proof that carbon dioxide causes warming. I have seen proof that sunspots caused above averidge earth tempetures, and the lack cause below averidge earth tempetures.

civilperson, we kinda need the cold to freeze the ground for drilling in uskeg areas. You wouldn't be able to even walk in those places if it doesn't freeze. It is actually less expensive. And what do you say about the ice roads to access otherwise inaccesible places?
cranky, I think NOBODY has seen froof of CO2 warming. It is based on too many assumptions to actually be clear.
As far as people, I wouldn't try to get rid of an x% of the population, but being us part of nature and the environment, shouldn't natural selection be allowed to run its course through the human population as well? We've proven time over time on how much we suck when it comes to trying to control the environment (Yellowstone park is a prime example; California where wildfires rage because of too much fire supression; the pine beetle; these are all good examples). Maybe if we weren't so overprotective of people more would die or wither away. Imagine, hard core environmetalists and politicians would soon fall through the cracks where they would be replaced by more capable people.... (before anybody labels me as a killer, there is sarcasm in my comment about letting people die)

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

The idea that we can "innovate" our way out of something we don't really understand (yet) gives me the heebie jeebies!

Without even talking about technological interventions our attempts so far have been way off the mark. "Simple" interventions in the environment e.g. the cane toad, myxomatosis have been a resounding failure. Other issues like Japanese knotweed and crayfish (in UK rivers) show how sensitive some environments can be to outside interventions

IF global warming is happening then some long term contingency planning (and dedication of appropriate resources) might be a more appropriate way to spend money

Now i really need a coffee...

No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary - William of Occam

Ah, competitions. Reminds me of the competition the Department of Energy ran years ago for development of energy saving devices. One of the winners was a solar clothes dryer. Duh--clotheslines have been around for a long time. The trouble is, few people in the US use them anymore, while most of the rest of the world does.

few people in the US use them anymore

and few are even allowed to use them, due to widespread bans by homeowners' associations.

Not allowed to hang you undies out? It must be an infringement of your civil liberties... go buy a gun.

JMW

.Windmills kill 0.08 % of the birds that cats kill. Buildings kill more than windmill.
Kill cats and live in teepees.

For nuclear airplanes, check out the Convair X-6.It was developed in the 50s. The program was ultimately abandonded. One of the drawbacks of a nuclear plane would be what would happen if it crashed.

Natural selection is at work in the Human race, just take a look at the Darwin Awards.

Jeff Mirisola, CSWP, Certified DriveWorks AE

One question on wind farms. What will happen in 15 to 20 years when most of these wind farms have failed?
How much will it cost to rid ourselves of these useless things? How long will the towers remain before they fall down from gravity/deterration?
Will someone start a wind farm recyleing program?
Or will all that used steel hitting the market really depress the steel prices?

Has anyone given thought to the end of life on these things?

What about photovoltaic panels?

The photovoltaics represent some bother to recycle, but not the turbines.

As to the OP's "award"- the only meaningful reward for climate change risk reduction will be a price on greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Once such a price is established, we can use existing technologies to deal with it. Anything else is window dressing.

Of course we'll pay ANY cost and make any changes to our lifestyle necessary as a result of the climate change we've caused, because we'll have no choice in the matter.

Ok, I found the best climate challenge I've seen to date: You might have seen this one too, though. This one I like. My initial proposal for an entry wouldn't fly here

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

I think that biofuels is an example of where good intentions have gone awry. For the same amount of money, we could have flooded the economy with whiskey. No one notices if it's cold outside when they're three sheets to the wind. I think it's a good idea, a book, "The Futurologic Congress" was written about it about 50 years ago.