Arnold "Doesn't Give A ****" If You Agree On Climate Change

[Lightknight]

The problem with electric cars and many other devices is the very much 'fossil' lithium

As of 2015, a US Geological survey stated that the world has enough known reserves of lithium to last us for 365 years at our current rate of production (37,tons per year).

We also already have prototypes of other types of batteries like Sodium-ion and Magnesium-ion as well as their X-sulfur and X-air alternatives. Even if lithium scales up to 100-gigafactories next year (no way in hell) we should still get half a century off of them.

The idea is that this is SIGNIFICANTLY cleaner than oil/gas. From harvesting to refining to using. Even a battery that has been used for several years can still carry an 80% charge and just think about how many gallons of gas that has avoided. Lithium certainly won't be the final solution, but we have so many promising alternatives and even ones that can do the job but slightly less efficiently already. It's better to ramp up car production now and implement the advancements as they come up since the actual mechanics of converting their energy to power will remain the same.

But I don't personally believe we're anywhere close to oil running out. I think either we didn't know how much oil really existed a few decades ago or people were blatantly lying to us.

 

[Piorn]

Honestly, for all the good democracy is doing for the world, sometimes you really just need someone to do the right thing, instead of just nothing.
I really appreciate what he's doing for america. The US might not be the smartest kid in the schoolyard, but it's one of the most popular. if you want to change the world, change the big players.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Isn't Arnold Republican? I don't see the party approving of this.

He's a California Republican, which is a bit left of a Texas Democrat. Especially on certain issues, state is more deciding than party on political stances.

 

[Lightknight]

Isn't Arnold Republican? I don't see the party approving of this.

He's a California Republican, which is a bit left of a Texas Democrat. Especially on certain issues, state is more deciding than party on political stances.

I just genuinely don't get how renewable clean energy sources are a partisan thing. No one disputes that pollution happens and oil has a terrible local ecological effect even if someone doesn't believe it is contributing to destruction of the planet.

It just doesn't have to be partisan. Dragging our feet at reducing pollution just because some people don't believe in climate change is like dragging our feet at feeding a hungry child just because someone believes that humans in general are eating too much.

It doesn't even make fiscal sense for anyone but big oil. Clean renewable energy often has a very beneficial return on investment. This is in everything from skyscrapers to houses to cars. Pricey up front with significant savings on the backend. The more common clean energy is, the cheaper and more efficient it will become which further increases the overall ROI as well as shortening the time between purchase and the break even point.

Anyone who is genuinely against clean renewables is likely to either be in the pocket of a corporation or to have been fooled by someone who was. The only advantage of oil is that our industries are built around it. But that's only the current advantage and upgrading bit by bit when you're going to upgrade or build new anyways makes sense any way you look at it.

 

[Bishop99999999]

snip

Plenty of coal mining and gulf communities who are happy to explain why it is such a partisan thing. I don't think Tesla or Google or Apple or any of the champions of our clean energy future are going to swoop in and save the people who are going to suffer in the transition.

I respect renewables for what they are, and how they change our approach to cars, buildings, and our overall infrastructure. But I also respect the sheer utility, energy density, and economy of fossil fuels, and their own potential for improving the quality of human life. For all their vocal support for green energy, China and India are doubling down on coal as a means of propping up their struggling economy and improving the quality of life for their poorest, respectively. Our own transition to energy independence is only economical if fossil fuels, principally natural gas, play a chief role in the next three or four decades. We aren't going to drop consumption. When we flip a light, we expect the lights to come on, and traditional fuels will continue to accomplish that far more reliably than green energy.

 

[Ylla]

Plenty of coal mining and gulf communities who are happy to explain why it is such a partisan thing. I don't think Tesla or Google or Apple or any of the champions of our clean energy future are going to swoop in and save the people who are going to suffer in the transition.

Well that is a non argument, Exxon would care even less, and when the oil is no longer a sustainable business they wont think twice before firing workers, just try to imagine a world with huge energetic needs that still depends on non renewable sources of energy and runs out of those....

I respect renewables for what they are, and how they change our approach to cars, buildings, and our overall infrastructure. But I also respect the sheer utility, energy density, and economy of fossil fuels, and their own potential for improving the quality of human life. For all their vocal support for green energy, China and India are doubling down on coal as a means of propping up their struggling economy and improving the quality of life for their poorest, respectively. Our own transition to energy independence is only economical if fossil fuels, principally natural gas, play a chief role in the next three or four decades. We aren't going to drop consumption. When we flip a light, we expect the lights to come on, and traditional fuels will continue to accomplish that far more reliably than green energy..

Jesus Christ, youre naming the two nations where 1.4 million people die every year because of air pollution (in each one), China specially is only recently entering its true industrialization stage whereas the industrialized world (duh) moved on a hundred years ago.
HOW IS OIL CHEAP, WAS IRAQ CHEAP? HOW IS HALF A BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK CHEAP??
Do you even understand oil production? Oil discovery peaked almost 70 years ago, USA only keeps forward because of unconventional sources. The world extraction from conventional sources peaked 5 years ago...
OH YES LETS SWITCH TO THAT OTHER HIGHLY FLAMMABLE POISONOUS GAS, TOTALLY THE BETTER CHOICE.
I think the part that most people dont understand (or refuse to hear) is that we will only fully switch to renewable sources of energy if mankind growth source rate is sustainable with those (which is happening), and that if you spend all your research in extracting as much oil as you can from shale then what do you think will happen when you run out of it? Attempt to extract oil from rocks? OH WAIT... SHALE IS A SEDIMENTARY ROCK.
If you know your ship is going to sink you build another ship when your current ship is still up and not when it starts to sink and definitely not when it has sunk and youre drowning, and if you can build a ship that lasts forever and doesnt kill your crew periodically-.... YOU BUILD THAT GODDAMN SHIP..
(Also i can post sources if you want but by the looks of it you didnt even read this very article).

 

[Sampler]

Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's largely because there isnt one. Renewables only become viable with large tax payer funded subsidies. Renewables get a $7.3 billion subsidy per year as opposed to nuclear power's $1.1 billion. Yet both produce no carbon and nuclear is available 24/7 and requires no back up power plants for when the wind isn't blowing/ sun isnt shining.

But it does for ramping, as nuclear is slow ramping (adjusting to the fluctuations in demand). As much as your argument is my argument, you shouldn't mislead on details.

Both require (rather inefficient) gas power stations to ramp quickly to meet fluctuations in demand. Now, if we could get some sort of capacitor to take the load of a nuclear station when demand drops, say, diverting it to strip hydrogen from oxygen to make hydrogen fuel, then we might have a cleaner nuclear solution (and gas for everyone's car).

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Isn't Arnold Republican? I don't see the party approving of this.

I think the general idea of his message here is "fuck the party".

And that's awesome. Arnold reminding us that, just because you're a Republican, you're not also legally obligated to be a blind, petty, small-minded, ignorant asshole.

 

[Bishop99999999]

Well that is a non argument, Exxon would care even less, and when the oil is no longer a sustainable business they wont think twice before firing workers, just try to imagine a world with huge energetic needs that still depends on non renewable sources of energy and runs out of those....

So you agree that these communities are going to be hit hard? Shall we classify them as necessary sacrifices? It is for the greater good after all...

Jesus Christ, youre naming the two nations where 1.4 million people die every year because of air pollution (in each one), China specially is only recently entering its true industrialization stage whereas the industrialized world (duh) moved on a hundred years ago.

You trivialize the movement of hundreds of millions from rural destitution into a thriving middle class in an astonishingly short length of time. Have you ever been poor in China? Protip: It is unpleasant.

Ditto for India, where about 300 million currently do not have access to electricity. Do you want to be the representative of the West and explain to these nice people that they can't have lights or heating because it makes you feel bad? True, respiratory illness is a major issue, but it is manageable with emissions regulation, not going cold turkey on the cheapest sources of power available. (BTW, Indians and Chinese have a penchant for cigarettes)

HOW IS OIL CHEAP, WAS IRAQ CHEAP? HOW IS HALF A BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK CHEAP??
Do you even understand oil production? Oil discovery peaked almost 70 years ago, USA only keeps forward because of unconventional sources. The world extraction from conventional sources peaked 5 years ago...

Cheer up. With fracking, the US is capable of cutting ties with the Middle East and becoming energy independent within the decade. No more blood for oil. Hooray!

Also, peak oil as a concept is dead:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2015/12/22/the-fallacy-of-peak-oil-demand/

And give your capslock key a break, my friend!

 

[gorfias]

While I think the "threat" of "Climate Change" is a bad, side splittingly hilarious joke,the idea of renewable energy, self sufficiency, that sort of thing sounds terrific.

The Left should give up on the scare mongering and start getting people excited about the possibilities offered by renewable energy.

 

[Lightknight]

snip

Plenty of coal mining and gulf communities who are happy to explain why it is such a partisan thing. I don't think Tesla or Google or Apple or any of the champions of our clean energy future are going to swoop in and save the people who are going to suffer in the transition.

This rhetoric is pervasive in nearly every significant technological advances.

The logic would make sure we never do anything that makes any archaic business unnecessary.

To be frank, the people profiting from a product don't really matter in the equation of whether or not an alternative is superior or inferior to the original. Electricity put any number of industries out of business. The workers went somewhere else and themselves benefited from the advancement. It's also not like the renewables industry isn't hiring too.

 

[Bishop99999999]

This rhetoric is pervasive in nearly every significant technological advances.

The logic would make sure we never do anything that makes any archaic business unnecessary.

To be frank, the people profiting from a product don't really matter in the equation of whether or not an alternative is superior or inferior to the original. Electricity put any number of industries out of business. The workers went somewhere else and themselves benefited from the advancement. It's also not like the renewables industry isn't hiring too.

I'm not talking about rich people. I'm talking about the actual rig workers, refiners, drivers, and myriad other people involved in fossil fuel production. They get a raw deal for absolutely no good reason.

Fossil fuels are not archaic. On the contrary, by every metric save for carbon emissions, they are superior to renewables (energy density, utility, scalability, reliability, predictability, etc.) We're not talking about Uber displacing taxis, we're talking about making taxis illegal to promote the cleaner horse and carriage industry.

 

[Ylla]

So you agree that these communities are going to be hit hard? Shall we classify them as necessary sacrifices? It is for the greater good after all...

We have to, non renewable resources run out, so better do it now with calm when we still have the chance than tomorrow when everything is fucked....

You trivialize the movement of hundreds of millions from rural destitution into a thriving middle class in an astonishingly short length of time. Have you ever been poor in China? Protip: It is unpleasant.
Ditto for India, where about 300 million currently do not have access to electricity. Do you want to be the representative of the West and explain to these nice people that they can't have lights or heating because it makes you feel bad? True, respiratory illness is a major issue, but it is manageable with emissions regulation, not going cold turkey on the cheapest sources of power available. (BTW, Indians and Chinese have a penchant for cigarettes)

Nope, im not, but thanks for putting all those words in my mouth, and btw thanks for ignoring my direct comparison with the Industrial Revolution which Protip; It was also not pleasant.
Its kind of weird tough... I didnt knew that just because they cant choose better, cleaner ways to produce energy then industrialized countries shouldnt too... Doesnt make much sense to me.

Also, peak oil as a concept is dead:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2015/12/22/the-fallacy-of-peak-oil-demand/

Peak extraction of conventional sources of petroleum is not peak oil at all.

I used capslock because i care and im passionate about this and yelling shows how much I care, Im not trying to be harsh