2016 Postmortem

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

23. No, you're burying your head in the sand

Mon May 9, 2016, 01:27 AM

May 2016

In 20 years we could supply the country's power with renewables, maybe (if there are enough lanthanides on earth for us to go strip mine, which isn't clear to begin with).

In the intervening 20 years, since you oppose fracking, that means you want more coal to be used.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

168 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you support fracking, or coal? [View all] Recursion May 2016 OP

Solar Electric Monk May 2016 #1

Head in the sand Recursion May 2016 #2

My parents already have solar at their cottage, and it works great. Totally off the grid. Electric Monk May 2016 #5

And that's awesome, particularly at low densities Recursion May 2016 #9

What part of "solar is already cheaper than coal" are you having trouble understanding? nt Electric Monk May 2016 #16

Why does the cost matter? Recursion May 2016 #27

Wind and hydro are not practical in my area of the Southwest. We have wind, but JDPriestly May 2016 #51

Which are great arguments for not building a megacity on a desert Recursion May 2016 #63

Very true. And since we already have a megacity here, we need to switch to solar and JDPriestly May 2016 #68

Could be worse: Dubai Recursion May 2016 #70

Amazing! How do they keep cool? JDPriestly May 2016 #73

It's a mix. There's a lot of air conditioning and (even more) heat pumps Recursion May 2016 #75

You cannot replace heat in the winter in apartment buildings- Hillary's TTIP fracking deal Baobab May 2016 #132

We may yet develop new materials that will substitute for the materials we now use for JDPriestly May 2016 #56

The problem they have is they haven't figured out yet how to profit from it unapatriciated May 2016 #134

What do they use for heating? Silver_Witch May 2016 #122

One might think providing allowing for merely two solutions to a complex problem is the very illustr LanternWaste May 2016 #138

The plan is to ship most of the LNG & Coal to foreign markets, not for domestic consumption anyway! TheBlackAdder May 2016 #143

Five minutes in, and two DUers already don't care about the environment Recursion May 2016 #3

False choice inchhigh May 2016 #79

Real choice. I mentioned them. In 10-15 years they can supply our power generation needs Recursion May 2016 #80

We built the most powerful military inchhigh May 2016 #112

Exactly. Juicy_Bellows May 2016 #137

Stupid poll. Loudestlib May 2016 #117

Check the results again and be embarrassed ... beedle May 2016 #139

And yet the results prove it Recursion May 2016 #140

Improve the environemnt by supporting beedle May 2016 #141

Yep. You have a choice of one or the other for the next decade. Which do you choose? Recursion May 2016 #142

Really? "Actual environmentalists"? beedle May 2016 #146

The refuse option is a catch all for when someone puts up dumb-assed options with zero nuance. TheBlackAdder May 2016 #168

We have waited so long, now we need action Silver_Witch May 2016 #4

Great idea Recursion May 2016 #7

Yes. Walking would not only help our environment. It would make inroads on our obesity JDPriestly May 2016 #47

Blame Judge Doom Recursion May 2016 #71

Thanks for raising this issue, but the way. It is so important for us to be thinking JDPriestly May 2016 #74

At least for the next 7 weeks I still live at sea level in the tropics Recursion May 2016 #76

Same here in Southern California. JDPriestly May 2016 #77

Coal is MUCH worse for the long-term health of the environment. NT Adrahil May 2016 #99

Well, it's a "which knee do you want to get shot in?" question Recursion May 2016 #110

I can agree with that, but.... Adrahil May 2016 #118

So you choose fracking to sustain us during the trasistion? Silver_Witch May 2016 #121

Based on what I know now.... yes. But.... Adrahil May 2016 #124

Neither. I support most hydro, with more building up and usage of wind. uppityperson May 2016 #6

I support them too, and if we spend a lot of money, in about 15 years they could be enough Recursion May 2016 #8

No, I do not. Do you? uppityperson May 2016 #10

It's one or the other Recursion May 2016 #11

No, I do not. Do you? uppityperson May 2016 #12

It's not a "yes or no" question, it's a "which one" question Recursion May 2016 #13

Which do you choose? uppityperson May 2016 #14

Fracking, because groundwater contamination isn't as bad as greenhouse gases and particulates Recursion May 2016 #17

Fracking and greenhouse gases A Little Weird May 2016 #95

Not so sure about that womanofthehills May 2016 #162

How about supporting increasing our efforts to switch to renewables maybe hundreds JDPriestly May 2016 #38

Yup. Agschmid May 2016 #113

There are more options than you provided. thesquanderer May 2016 #156

The 4th Largest Economy In The World Just Generated 90 Percent Of The Power It Needs From Renewables Electric Monk May 2016 #163

Hydro is good if you live in an area with a lot of water, but in Southern California, it JDPriestly May 2016 #40

I support Nuclear. As a scientist-in-training it is baffling to me that we do not use it more JonLeibowitz May 2016 #15

Nuclear definitely has a role in our future, I agree Recursion May 2016 #18

Yep, but I hope you don't take from this that our candidates are equal on the issues. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #26

We support different candidates? Recursion May 2016 #31

No I don't think we support different candidates. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #41

Tell that to the people in Portland, downwind and downstream from Hanford. JDPriestly May 2016 #32

And particulates from coal kill millions of people every year (nt) Recursion May 2016 #37

+1 JonLeibowitz May 2016 #43

Let's hope. We need to invest in moving toward more sensible technologies. JDPriestly May 2016 #59

True. Especially in highly populated areas like Los Angeles in which we have problems JDPriestly May 2016 #54

I grew up downwind of the Salem NJ nuclear plant. I was scared as a kid. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #135

Agree!!! n/t RKP5637 May 2016 #103

This message was self-deleted by its author artislife May 2016 #19

But if you oppose fracking you're supporting coal Recursion May 2016 #20

This message was self-deleted by its author artislife May 2016 #21

No, you're burying your head in the sand Recursion May 2016 #23

We have to allow that we are constantly making new discoveries. JDPriestly May 2016 #29

This message was self-deleted by its author artislife May 2016 #53

We also should not have fracking in Southern California because of the proven increased JDPriestly May 2016 #60

Those are perfectly valid reasons to oppose fracking, which means using more coal Recursion May 2016 #62

Coal is not good here because of the fact that due to the mountain ranges that JDPriestly May 2016 #65

For the long term, definitely Recursion May 2016 #66

We already have some solar and we have wind farms out in the Eastern part of the state JDPriestly May 2016 #69

Right now, California gets 5.5% of its energy from hydro, 6.4% from coal. 20.1% is from renewables Bluenorthwest May 2016 #119

Why can Germany do it but not us? womanofthehills May 2016 #159

We can too. They started about 20 years ago Recursion May 2016 #160

Probably fracking of those two, but fracking certainly isn't good ... Onlooker May 2016 #22

Who the hell said fracking was "good"? Recursion May 2016 #24

No one said it's good, but ... Onlooker May 2016 #61

I met a man on a train who builds power plants. JDPriestly May 2016 #64

I live in Southern California and would like to have a lot more solar. JDPriestly May 2016 #25

Solar cells require fairly rare metals that are oxidized by the power generation process Recursion May 2016 #30

Excellent Graphic. Never seen that one before. Warren DeMontague May 2016 #28

The rejection rate from power generation and transport is stunning Recursion May 2016 #35

Yeah, that jumped out at me, too. Warren DeMontague May 2016 #42

Or (ironically) equal to the entire output of coal and natural gas, roughly Recursion May 2016 #44

Which is why I suspect decentralized generation schemes will have to be part of the answer Warren DeMontague May 2016 #52

Hugely agree with the decentralization Recursion May 2016 #57

LLNL does great research (not going to say anything else to avoid identifying myself) JonLeibowitz May 2016 #48

That's been the line- Fusion is 20 years away. Always... 20 years away. Warren DeMontague May 2016 #55

I mean, the nuclear research that LLNL is so far from production I wouldn't put a timetable on it. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #58

I support wind, sun, geothermal and tidal, Blue_In_AK May 2016 #33

And for the 20 years it takes to build those capacities out? Recursion May 2016 #34

Since you're giving me a binary question, Blue_In_AK May 2016 #50

And that took them 15 years to do, didn't it? Recursion May 2016 #82

I'm against both of them and so are a lot specialists and experts. Cheese Sandwich May 2016 #36

Too bad! Which do you want us to use? Recursion May 2016 #39

There is a way. Use less energy and put more renewables into the mix Cheese Sandwich May 2016 #49

Yep. And in those 10 years we need power generation Recursion May 2016 #67

I don't agree with your framing of the question. Cheese Sandwich May 2016 #78

Too bad, because that's the actual question we face, today Recursion May 2016 #83

Short term thinking is what got us down this road. You have to look ahead, decades ahead. Cheese Sandwich May 2016 #84

Should have listened to this guy 40 years ago. senz May 2016 #45

Yep. I wish we had (nt) Recursion May 2016 #46

You make the ad nauseum declaration that the choice is coal or fracking... wundermaus May 2016 #72

Because the choice is coal or fracking and pretending we can magically build out renewables tomorrow Recursion May 2016 #81

This message was self-deleted by its author uppityperson May 2016 #144

It's not either/or. Depends on region. pat_k May 2016 #85

False choice and it completely ignores... NeoGreen May 2016 #86

Solar and wind. JonathanRackham May 2016 #87

And you have a pretty graphic. Android3.14 May 2016 #88

And the moon landing took almost a decade Recursion May 2016 #89

I'm surprised you didn't include nuclear, lol. B Calm May 2016 #90

I mentioned it. Same problem as renewables: it would take a decade or so Recursion May 2016 #91

Why is it America is not ready? I remember a time when America led the world, now B Calm May 2016 #93

Same reason we weren't ready to go to the moon in 1962? Recursion May 2016 #94

So in the mean time we should invest all our energy in supporting gas and coal? B Calm May 2016 #100

It's that or see a massive drop in available energy Recursion May 2016 #101

Maybe Trump is right when he says we are not great anymore. . B Calm May 2016 #102

Nah. I live in the third world right now, remember Recursion May 2016 #104

5 other countries are leading the way to renewable energy. B Calm May 2016 #106

Burlington, Vermont disagrees. They are now at 100% renewable energy for it's residents. B Calm May 2016 #164

Exactly: it took them about 20 years to get there Recursion May 2016 #166

I've reread that article and for the like of me can't figure where you pulled that 20 years out of, B Calm May 2016 #167

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #92

You don't have an option for reducing personal energy usage hellofromreddit May 2016 #96

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #97

Actually, I do run my computer womanofthehills May 2016 #161

Well, like MOST things, it's complicated. Adrahil May 2016 #98

Interesting how many don't get the question. Agschmid May 2016 #105

In retrospect the language is ambiguous Recursion May 2016 #107

Thread is worth the time to read it, thanks for posting. Agschmid May 2016 #108

Who's that between the Zakim bridge and the BU Citgo Sign in your sig? Recursion May 2016 #109

Kiiara Agschmid May 2016 #111

Love it, thanks! Recursion May 2016 #114

What's missing from your OP verbiage is a timeline, you seem to be saying 'coal or fraking forever' Bluenorthwest May 2016 #120

No, I specifically said "now" and mentioned a decade+ time frame (nt) Recursion May 2016 #123

And yet your polling verbiage is 'do you support coal or do you support fracking' and Bluenorthwest May 2016 #125

I think both will be needed for another twenty years My Good Babushka May 2016 #115

Thanks, that's a really good answer (nt) Recursion May 2016 #116

Whichever one Clinton likes is clearly the best. n/t leeroysphitz May 2016 #126

Well, there's a nice false dichotomy, courtesy of the American Petroleum Institute lagomorph777 May 2016 #127

Wind, solar, and ocean currents are the future. The sooner the better. -nt- NorthCarolina May 2016 #128

What about a both box? n/t doc03 May 2016 #129

No I do not support the TTIP fracking deal thats going to push millions out on the street Baobab May 2016 #130

Neither. LWolf May 2016 #131

nope, enough said. unapatriciated May 2016 #133

Magic. Sparkly May 2016 #136

You're kidding right? One does not need to support those things to let them keep going. Xyzse May 2016 #145

Why didn't you put an option for "neither"?? pdsimdars May 2016 #147

Because reducing fracking means more coal gets mined and burned Recursion May 2016 #148

Well, unless you focus on switching . . like we switched all those auto factories into making planes pdsimdars May 2016 #149

Which, as I said in the OP, could pay off in a decade or so Recursion May 2016 #150

WTF is a quad? tularetom May 2016 #151

A quadrillion BTUs, or roughly an exajoule Recursion May 2016 #154

Its been many years since I knew this stuff but I recall that a million BTU's = 300 kwhr =/- tularetom May 2016 #155

With the caveat that thermodynamics was about a decade ago, 5 Zottajoules, or 5000 quads. Recursion May 2016 #157

Solar. Wind Matariki May 2016 #152

Neither. basselope May 2016 #153

Not enough options, this is a push poll. CentralCoaster May 2016 #158

Neither. We built the bomb in @ 3 years iirc. Our WWII military in half that time riderinthestorm May 2016 #165