what are y'all saving from the wild to deal with coming crisis?

[Shadrach]

Hydro is not considered renewable energy in the US.

Is that so? I find that very strange given the rest of the world would include it as renewable.
I mean we are not expecting the sun to go out in the foreseeable future and Hydro is likely to be around long after fossil fuels have become uneconomic to extract.

 

[HenOnAJuneBug]

Is that so? I find that very strange given the rest of the world would include it as renewable.
I mean we are not expecting the sun to go out in the foreseeable future and Hydro is likely to be around long after fossil fuels have become uneconomic to extract.

I think it is renewable, but apparently the powers that be do not.

But in general, hydropower is not even considered a renewable energy in most states or, for the most part, by the federal government.

https://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-hydropower-renewable-energy.html

 

[HenOnAJuneBug]

https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors
http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...er-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

small scale nuclear reactors....

I dont care if you dont belive me @HenOnAJuneBug or if you dont approve. or have evidence of something else.

The intent of the OP for this thread was what to collect and save from existing surroundings for survival.

deb

Oh gen 4 nuclear. Yes, that potentially would be a great development. I don't think they can be left unattended for 50 years, though. I'm pretty sure they require some type of refueling every few years or so.

 

[HenOnAJuneBug]

Here's some reality for our friends who might be tempted to think that going 100% renewable by 2050 is realistic. Assuming worldwide energy usage doesn't increase from now until 2050, to convert to 100% renewables would take installing approx. 3 million solar panels or 430 wind turbines each day until 2050 (over 11,000 days).

Details of this study are here:

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/06/22

 

[Shadrach]

Here's some reality for our friends who might be tempted to think that going 100% renewable by 2050 is realistic. Assuming worldwide energy usage doesn't increase from now until 2050, to convert to 100% renewables would take installing approx. 3 million solar panels or 430 wind turbines each day until 2050 (over 11,000 days).

Details of this study are here:

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/06/22

Come on Mark Moreno, he's a fruitcake.
I don't think anyone is denying that full reliance on renewable energy sources is an easy target. That doesn't mean we shouldn't embark on the road to achieving it.

 

[HenOnAJuneBug]

Come on Mark Moreno, he's a fruitcake.
I don't think anyone is denying that full reliance on renewable energy sources is an easy target. That doesn't mean we shouldn't embark on the road to achieving it.

It's not Mark Moreno (who actually seems like a pretty bright guy). That analysis was by Roger Pielke, Jr.

 

[Kiki]

It's not Mark Moreno (who actually seems like a pretty bright guy). That analysis was by Roger Pielke, Jr.

I read by Marc Morano at the bottom.

 

[Shadrach]

Here are a couple of sites worth checking out if anyone is interested in some rational thinking and fact checking.

https://www.politifact.com/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

 

[austroberta]

Mt. Saint Helens put nearly as much CO² in the atmosphere in a week as mankind has in it's entire history of burning fossil fuels, Krakatoa produced more.

\

That is the biggest bunch of horse puckey that I ever heard. Mt Saint Helens HAS NOT put more Co2 in the air as mankind has putout in its entire history of burning fossil fuels. Not even by a longshot.


I agree with you that the government can't be part of the solution in dealing with climate change; it's up to individuals and society to start changing their consumption patterns. Our ancestors were mostly rural in the past and had a better idea of the limits of what the earth could sustain. I think the many ways we waste and squander resources would horrify them. Now the population in the developed world lives in cities, is completely disconnected from nature and has NO idea the amount of resources/costs it takes to produce the things they consume, nor the effect on the environment. 1/4 of the food that Americans buy doesn't even make it to the table. Food is so cheap, and so available, we can just throw 25% of it away, without a second thought. We throw it out without thinking of the water, nutrients, etc that went into to producing that food. People point to the stability of the past as proof that human civilization will go on as before, however, this grand experiment of rampant consumption, exploitation and convenience has never been tried before.

 

[clembone]

Here are a couple of sites worth checking out if anyone is interested in some rational thinking and fact checking.

https://www.politifact.com/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

Thank you for posting suggestions on where to check facts.


from https://www.iste.org/explore/Digita...p-10-sites-to-help-students-check-their-facts

Here's a rundown of 10 of the top fact- and bias-checking sites to share with your students.

AllSides. While not a fact-checking site, AllSides curates stories from right, center and left-leaning media so that readers can easily compare how bias influences reporting on each topic.

Fact Check. This nonpartisan, nonprofit project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania monitors the factual accuracy of what is said by U.S. political players, including politicians, TV ads, debates, interviews and news releases.

Media Matters. This nonprofit and self-described liberal-leaning research center monitors and corrects conservative misinformation in the media.

NewsBusters. A project of the conservative Media Research Center, NewsBusters is focused on “documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.”

Open Secrets. This nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit website run by the Center for Responsive Politics tracks how much and where candidates get their money.

Politifact. This Pulitzer Prize winning website rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials. Run by editors and reporters from the independent newspaper Tampa Bay Times, Politicfact features the Truth-O-Meter that rates statements as “True,” “Mostly True,” “Half True,” “False,” and “Pants on Fire.”

ProPublica. This independent, nonprofit newsroom has won several Pulitzer Prizes, including the 2016 Prize for Explanatory Reporting. ProPublica produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

Snopes. This independent, nonpartisan website run by professional researcher and writer David Mikkelson researches urban legends and other rumors. It is often the first to set the facts straight on wild fake news claims.

The Sunlight Foundation. This nonpartisan, nonprofit organization uses public policy data-based journalism to make politics more transparent and accountable.

Washington Post Fact Checker. Although the Washington Post has a left-center bias, its checks are excellent and sourced. The bias shows up because they fact check conservative claims more than liberal ones.