Quote from: cascoly on July 30, 2022, 01:06
fracking's rape of the environment:

... music to Putin's ears! And to MBS's ears too!

Two criminals, two murderers validated by the colossal political mistake of relying on their gas and oil while rejecting viable alternatives at hand.

Quote from: Wilm on July 28, 2022, 21:42


The population density in the USA is about 34 inhabitants per square kilometer. In Germany, we are at about 230 inhabitants per square kilometer.

I think that the different ways of dealing with the issue of fracking is also due to these figures.

In the USA, fracking takes place in many places where only a few people live and where the risk of direct danger to the population is therefore lower than it would be in any place in Germany.

I therefore assume that the German government has a different attitude towards fracking than the US government.

the German govt is also probably not bought by oil & gas companies. in the US congressional bills are often written by the industries being regulated

"People on the Hill don't stay as long," he says. "You don't get as good people on the Hill. The expertise on policymaking more and more has moved to the private sector, and it's moved to represent those organizations and companies who can afford to pay for it, which generally isn't you and me. It's big banks and Big Oil and big companies."  https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill

while population density is low in US fracking areas, severe environmental damage results; and water used in fracking is enormous (in western states undergoing years of drought!)

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011915/what-are-effects-fracking-environment.asp

The German government made another big political blunder when they decided to shut down all their nuclear power plants, only to increase their dependency on Russian gas and oil.
That was as stupid as banning fracking.

Reopening coal power plants and validating Putin's war crimes is definitely the worst alternative: pollution is worsening and innocent people are dying.

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2022, 21:05
The German government made another big political blunder when they decided to shutdown all their nuclear power plants, only to increase their dependency on Russian gas and oil.
That was as stupid as banning fracking.
Reopening coal power plants and validating Putin's war crimes is definitely the worst alternative: pollution is worsen and innocent people are dying.

I disagree. The political blunder the (past) German government did was not to decide to shutdown nuclear power plants and ban fraking - These were the right decisions. As long as we do not know what to do with our nuclear waste and as long as fracking poses a health and environmental risk due to toxic chemicals and water pollution these are no acceptable alternatives.
The big blunder the German government did was do decide to shutdown nuclear power plants and ban fraking, while not pushing renewable energy resources in a way that they could compensate for nuclear power and fracking.

Quote from: Firn on July 31, 2022, 07:13

The big blunder the German government did was do decide to shutdown nuclear power plants and ban fraking, while not pushing renewable energy resources in a way that they could compensate for nuclear power and fracking.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. No disagreement.

In an ideal world, there should only be green energy.
But in the real world, caving under the pressure from extreme left groups, the German government pushed itself into a corner where there is no alternative to Putin's gas and oil.

Knowing very well that renewable energies are far from being sufficient to sustain the German economy, the German government banned fracking and shut down nuclear power plants, while investing in pipelines to Russia.

Innocent people (including children) are killed by a murderer sponsored by German money. The environment is polluted even more by re-opening coal power plants.

Big political mistake, indeed!

Quote from: Firn on July 31, 2022, 07:13
The big blunder the German government did was do decide to shutdown nuclear power plants and ban fraking, while not pushing renewable energy resources in a way that they could compensate for nuclear power and fracking.

Well, Germany did invest huge amounts of money in renewable energies, but it takes time to rebuild the whole energy generation of an industrial country.

I do not think that much more would have been realistic, particularly as we have reached a point were much more electric energy from Wind and Solar does not make a lot of sense without the possibility to store the energy and we did not make any real progress in this area during the last decades and I do not see any country really having more success there, except some countries with large resources of hydropower.

Quote from: Big Toe on July 31, 2022, 12:26

Well, Germany did invest huge amounts of money in renewable energies, but it takes time to rebuild the whole energy generation of an industrial country.

Not really. The Germany government spends around 37 BILLION € subsidizing the coal industry each year. In 2021 they only spent around 13 billion for the development of renewable energies.
And there was plenty of time. Only that for the past 20 years the governmet wasted all the time. Compared to the support of other industries, they basically did close to nothing for renewable energy industries.

Quote from: Big Toe on July 31, 2022, 12:26

I do not think that much more would have been realistic, particularly as we have reached a point were much more electric energy from Wind and Solar does not make a lot of sense without the possibility to store the energy and we did not make any real progress in this area during the last decades and I do not see any country really having more success there, except some countries with large resources of hydropower.

Also not really. We could store much more energy if the government had spend more money on building strorage facilities, instead of supporting the coal industry. The technology is there. We just don't spend enough money on it. And right now we don't produce enough renewable energy to have any kind of storage problem.
Also, we could produce a lot  more energy through renewable recources that don't need to be stored, but could be used right away. Put a solar panel on every single building. A solar panel on a roof can cover around 40% of the electricity needed for a residential building. That's 40% less energy you need from other recources. But for that, a law that would require solar pannels on roofs of newly build buildings should have been passed 20 years ago. Didn't happen till today.

Quote from: Firn on July 31, 2022, 13:05
Not really. The Germany government spends around 37 BILLION € subsidizing the coal industry each year.

Where did you get this number from? This would be about 17% of the Federal Budget. Seems exceedingly high.

Quote from: Firn on July 31, 2022, 13:05
In 2021 they only spent around 13 billion for the development of renewable energies.

This seems to be about the amount collected with the EEG surcharge (EEG-Umlage). Germany spent more money for the energy transition, though, like subsidies for electric cars or for low energy houses.

Quote from: Firn on July 31, 2022, 13:05
And there was plenty of time. Only that for the past 20 years the governmet wasted all the time. Compared to the support of other industries, they basically did close to nothing for renewable energy industries.

Then why did nobody else have more success? Again, with the exception of countries with large ressources of hydropower.

Quote from: Firn on July 31, 2022, 13:05
Also not really. We could store much more energy if the government had spend more money on building strorage facilities, instead of supporting the coal industry. The technology is there. We just don't spend enough money on it. And right now we don't produce enough renewable energy to have any kind of storage problem.
Also, we could produce a lot  more energy through renewable recources that don't need to be stored, but could be used right away. Put a solar panel on every single building. A solar panel on a roof can cover around 40% of the electricity needed for a residential building. That's 40% less energy you need from other recources. But for that, a law that would require solar pannels on roofs of newly build buildings should have been passed 20 years ago. Didn't happen till today.

You can install all the solar panels on all the buildings you want (if you find the people to install them), you will still have next to no electricity at noon in winter and none at all after 3 or 4 PM.

And again, why did nobody else have more success storing electric energy from wind or solar? Seems like there is no easy solution after all, or somebody would have used it by now, even if the technology is there, in theory.

Quote from: Firn on July 31, 2022, 07:13./ As long as we do not know what to do with our nuclear waste ...

US solved that problem (thru inaction) - we just store the waste at 'specially designed pools' at individual power plants!

in the 80s i worked for a low-lvl radioactive waste disposal company (short half-life like medical waste that only needs to be stored for at most decades) -- dumped in a 50' deep pit in 600'+ layer of clay. I did finite element modeling to design casks - 20' high containers to transport 50 gal drums of waste - physical tested by dropping off freeway overpass (empty) (took an effort to convince them computer modeling first was a better approach the n just "build & drop")

attended industry conferences with sessions about disposal of higher-level waste - several reasonable (?) proposals offered, but 40 yrs later still nothing done - many rejected by NIMBY (not in my backyard) politics

Quote from: Big Toe on July 31, 2022, 13:42...
You can install all the solar panels on all the buildings you want (if you find the people to install them), you will still have next to no electricity at noon in winter and none at all after 3 or 4 PM.

And again, why did nobody else have more success storing electric energy from wind or solar? Seems like there is no easy solution after all, or somebody would have used it by now, even if the technology is there, in theory.

solar panels still work on cloudy days

batteries are available, but expensive - some areas have a way to feed the grid when excess power is generated

in US problem is less technological than corporate greed - much more spent on continued use of fossil fuels

Quote from: cascoly on July 31, 2022, 19:07

US solved that problem (thru inaction) - we just store the waste at 'specially designed pools' at individual power plants!

That's not solving the problem, it's delaying the problem.
What happens in 500 years when the containers start to leak? When the walls of the power plant start to become bristle? What happens in 10.000 years (if the world still exists)? Do you know what "Nuclear semiotics" is? A field of research to come up with a long-term nuclear waste warning message, the attempt to warn humankind in the far future of the danger of location of nuclear waste without the assumption that they speak any language known to us.
Storing them in a facility is just postponing to solve the problem and the only solution to this problem would be finding a method to make nuclear waste not-contaminated and no one has solved that problem yet. In the menatime storing nuclear waste anywhere is just delaying the problem to future generations. Because the containers WILL leak eventually. But it's the whole climate change problem all over again and why I think we won't be able to stop it: "Why should I care what happens in 500 years? That's not my problem. I'll be dead by then. I want my cheap electricity now. Don't care that future generations will have to pay the price."

Quote from: cascoly on July 31, 2022, 19:14

Quote from: Big Toe on July 31, 2022, 13:42...
You can install all the solar panels on all the buildings you want (if you find the people to install them), you will still have next to no electricity at noon in winter and none at all after 3 or 4 PM.

solar panels still work on cloudy days

They only yield a fraction of what they do at sunshine, though, and they certainly don't work after sunset.

Quote from: cascoly on July 31, 2022, 19:14
batteries are available, but expensive - some areas have a way to feed the grid when excess power is generated

Yes, of course the solar panels feed the power not locally needed into the grid. The problem is that everybody does that at noon on a sunny summer day, while not much power from solar panels is available in winter and none at all after 3 or 4 PM in winter. At least in Germany, it may be different further south. The power from wind mills cannot compensate for that and they do not always provide the same yield either.

Quote from: Firn on July 31, 2022, 19:39
Do you know what "Nuclear semiotics" is? A field of research to come up with a long-term nuclear waste warning message, the attempt to warn humankind in the far future of the danger of location of nuclear waste without the assumption that they speak any language known to us.

A reasonable number of people today can still read texts that are more than 2000 years old in languages like Sanskrit, Hebrew, Ancient Greek or Latin.

Specialists can read even older texts in languages like Hittite or Sumerian.

I have no doubt that mankind will still be able to decipher English texts in 10,000 years, and probably a number of other languages spoken and written today, like Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Arabic, Spanish, German, Russian or French, as there is so much literature and other written stuff availble in these languages and it is very unlikely that this will all be lost.

Unless something really desastrous happens that destroys our civilasation, like when the earth is hit by gigantic meteorite. In that case, some nuclear waste will be the least of our problems.

Quote from: cascoly on July 31, 2022, 19:14

Quote from: Big Toe on July 31, 2022, 13:42...
You can install all the solar panels on all the buildings you want (if you find the people to install them), you will still have next to no electricity at noon in winter and none at all after 3 or 4 PM.

And again, why did nobody else have more success storing electric energy from wind or solar? Seems like there is no easy solution after all, or somebody would have used it by now, even if the technology is there, in theory.

solar panels still work on cloudy days

batteries are available, but expensive - some areas have a way to feed the grid when excess power is generated

in US problem is less technological than corporate greed - much more spent on continued use of fossil fuels

Yes, batteries are the way to go.

On a personal level, we had one installed in our garage 3 years ago, which is hooked up to our solar panels, and has already paid for itself. (Not to mention, one of my stock photos of it, is my number 1 best seller on AS, and sells daily since I first uploaded it  )


On a statewide level, South Australia has the world's first big battery, built by Elon Musk in 2017 to assist South Australia after we had a major statewide blackout and power crisis. It was up and operational very quickly. Tesla made a deal that it would be '100 days or its free' with our government. Its provided jobs. Its helped our economy, lowered electricity costs and has an positive economic multiplier effect. Its hooked up to a wind farm.

I have been meaning to go up there and get some drone shots of it for awhile, but its quite a distance away.

In a statement confirming the Federal Government's investment in the battery expansion, Energy Minister Angus Taylor said it would improve response times on the worst days when demand was at its highest and the wind was not blowing and the sun was not shining.

"Projects like this, combined with the gas and pumped hydro projects that are coming online, are extremely important to the future integration of renewable energy to the South Australian grid," he said." (2019)

While Australia is still mining and exporting coal overseas, "Neoen's Hornsdale Power Reserve is a pioneering project that aims to demonstrate the full technical capabilities of what batteries can achieve," says ARENA CEO Darren Miller. Improving the economics of energy storage is going to be key in our transition to high shares of renewable electricity. We look forward to more grid-scale batteries becoming equipped with advanced inverter capabilities."


https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/

Paul Harvey with some climate change prescience from 1992.


https://youtu.be/0OtQhIJde50

Quote from: Firn on July 31, 2022, 19:39

Quote from: cascoly on July 31, 2022, 19:07

US solved that problem (thru inaction) - we just store the waste at 'specially designed pools' at individual power plants!

That's not solving the problem, it's delaying the problem.
What happens in 500 years when the containers start to leak? When the walls of the power plant start to become bristle? What happens in 10.000 years (if the world still exists)? Do you know what "Nuclear semiotics" is? A field of research to come up with a long-term nuclear waste warning message, the attempt to warn humankind in the far future of the danger of location of nuclear waste without the assumption that they speak any language known to us.
Storing them in a facility is just postponing to solve the problem and the only solution to this problem would be finding a method to make nuclear waste not-contaminated and no one has solved that problem yet. In the menatime storing nuclear waste anywhere is just delaying the problem to future generations. Because the containers WILL leak eventually. But it's the whole climate change problem all over again and why I think we won't be able to stop it: "Why should I care what happens in 500 years? That's not my problem. I'll be dead by then. I want my cheap electricity now. Don't care that future generations will have to pay the price."

sorry - sarcasm lost! - i agree w you completely

Quote from: cascoly on August 01, 2022, 01:37
That's not solving the problem, it's delaying the problem.
What happens in 500 years when the containers start to leak? When the walls of the power plant start to become bristle? What happens in 10.000 years (if the world still exists)?

You are assuming that the technology 500 or 10.000 years from now will be the same as today.

It's as if 10.000 years ago humans were afraid to master fire to prevent bad things from happening today.

Rest assured that technology will evolve and solutions will become available for many problems that may seem difficult to solve today.

What you do is proposing to sacrifice real humans, people struggling today to prevent hypothetical problems that may or may not happen in the (very) distant future.

Nevertheless, I must admit that the topic may be suitable for a good science fiction movie. Apocalyptic scenarios gather decent ratings.
Here are the top 100: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls052725603/

Quote from: cascoly on August 01, 2022, 01:37

Quote from: Firn on July 31, 2022, 19:39

Quote from: cascoly on July 31, 2022, 19:07

US solved that problem (thru inaction) - we just store the waste at 'specially designed pools' at individual power plants!

That's not solving the problem, it's delaying the problem.
What happens in 500 years when the containers start to leak? When the walls of the power plant start to become bristle? What happens in 10.000 years (if the world still exists)? Do you know what "Nuclear semiotics" is? A field of research to come up with a long-term nuclear waste warning message, the attempt to warn humankind in the far future of the danger of location of nuclear waste without the assumption that they speak any language known to us.
Storing them in a facility is just postponing to solve the problem and the only solution to this problem would be finding a method to make nuclear waste not-contaminated and no one has solved that problem yet. In the menatime storing nuclear waste anywhere is just delaying the problem to future generations. Because the containers WILL leak eventually. But it's the whole climate change problem all over again and why I think we won't be able to stop it: "Why should I care what happens in 500 years? That's not my problem. I'll be dead by then. I want my cheap electricity now. Don't care that future generations will have to pay the price."

sorry - sarcasm lost! - i agree w you completely

Oops, sorry, my sarcasm detector is way off. With what weird opinions some people display on the internet you can never know whether they are being serious or not.

Quote from: Big Toe on July 26, 2022, 22:43

Quote from: Lizard on July 26, 2022, 16:28
Funny Scientific Fact:

In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent.

Is that the best you can do? Just make up some stuff?

It's neither funny, nor scientific, nor a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

0.04% ... FACT...Now go and accuse real scientists they are inventing stuff you don't like!

The current molecular composition of Earth's atmosphere is diatomic nitrogen (N2), 78.08 percent; diatomic oxygen (O2), 20.95 percent; argon (A), 0.93 percent; water (H20), about 0 to 4 percent; and carbon dioxide (CO2), 0.04 percent. Inert gases such as neon (Ne), helium (He), and krypton (Kr) and other constituents such as nitrogen oxides, compounds of sulfur, and compounds of ozone are found in lesser amounts.


SOURCES:

https://www.britannica.com/science/atmosphere

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/

https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality/resources/glossary/carbon-dioxide

https://ballotpedia.org/Carbon_dioxide

https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html


So, its a FACT, its SCIENTIFIC, and its FUNNY and there's nothing you can do about it.   

Quote from: Lizard on August 07, 2022, 08:43

Quote from: Big Toe on July 26, 2022, 22:43

Quote from: Lizard on July 26, 2022, 16:28
Funny Scientific Fact:

In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent.

Is that the best you can do? Just make up some stuff?

It's neither funny, nor scientific, nor a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

0.04% ... FACT...Now go and accuse real scientists they are inventing stuff you don't like!

The current molecular composition of Earth's atmosphere is diatomic nitrogen (N2), 78.08 percent; diatomic oxygen (O2), 20.95 percent; argon (A), 0.93 percent; water (H20), about 0 to 4 percent; and carbon dioxide (CO2), 0.04 percent. Inert gases such as neon (Ne), helium (He), and krypton (Kr) and other constituents such as nitrogen oxides, compounds of sulfur, and compounds of ozone are found in lesser amounts.


SOURCES:

https://www.britannica.com/science/atmosphere

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/

https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality/resources/glossary/carbon-dioxide

https://ballotpedia.org/Carbon_dioxide

https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html


So, its a FACT, its SCIENTIFIC, and its FUNNY and there's nothing you can do about it.   

We already had this conversation.

Quote from: Firn on July 26, 2022, 17:30

Quote from: Lizard on July 26, 2022, 16:28

Funny Scientific Fact:

In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent.

That's not a "scientific fact", or at least it's just a twisted part of it without looking at the whole picture.
It's true that natural resources cause high amounts of carbon, but, unlike human caused carbon it does not add any net CO2 to the atmosphere. It's a cycle where carbon is added and taken again from the atmosphere.
Any biomass which decomposes must first have grown  the CO2 released during rotting. It was first taken from the atmosphere by photosynthesis and then later added again.
It's all explained better than I could here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/the-global-co2-rise-the-facts-exxon-and-the-favorite-denial-tricks/

Quote from: Lizard on July 26, 2022, 16:28
Fun scientific fact:

The theory of global warming in its core assumes maximum warming at the poles.

At the same time the average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years.

Can't comment on this, as I don't understand where these numbers are coming from. I found numbers of  the average temperatures in the Arctic rising by 3.1°C over the past 50 year. (Source:  Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme ). I did find one article with your numbers, but it didn't specify where exactly the number was suppose dto come from.

Quote from: Lizard on August 07, 2022, 08:43

Quote from: Big Toe on July 26, 2022, 22:43

Quote from: Lizard on July 26, 2022, 16:28
Funny Scientific Fact:

In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent.

Is that the best you can do? Just make up some stuff?

It's neither funny, nor scientific, nor a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

0.04% ... FACT...Now go and accuse real scientists they are inventing stuff you don't like!
...
So, its a FACT, its SCIENTIFIC, and its FUNNY and there's nothing you can do about it.   

The current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was the only fact in your posting and noone disputes that. Or perhaps I should say it's almost a fact, since the concentration is increasing and according to the Wikipedia article I linked to, the concentration was already 0.041% in 2018, but never mind that.

What is made up is that 95% of that is from natural sources. In pre-industrial times, the concentration was only 0.028, so the increase, which is mainly due to human activities, is 0.012, not 0.0016, as your posting suggested.

Quote from: Lizard on August 07, 2022, 08:43

Quote from: Big Toe on July 26, 2022, 22:43

Quote from: Lizard on July 26, 2022, 16:28
Funny Scientific Fact:

In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent.

Is that the best you can do? Just make up some stuff?

It's neither funny, nor scientific, nor a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

0.04% ... FACT...Now go and accuse real scientists they are inventing stuff you don't like!

The current molecular composition of Earth's atmosphere is diatomic nitrogen (N2), 78.08 percent; diatomic oxygen (O2), 20.95 percent; argon (A), 0.93 percent; water (H20), about 0 to 4 percent; and carbon dioxide (CO2), 0.04 percent. Inert gases such as neon (Ne), helium (He), and krypton (Kr) and other constituents such as nitrogen oxides, compounds of sulfur, and compounds of ozone are found in lesser amounts.


SOURCES:

https://www.britannica.com/science/atmosphere

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/

https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality/resources/glossary/carbon-dioxide

https://ballotpedia.org/Carbon_dioxide

https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html


So, its a FACT, its SCIENTIFIC, and its FUNNY and there's nothing you can do about it.   

If you read the text in the 2nd source you linked here, it is very clear to read that the - supposedly so small - share of CO2 emissions caused by us humans is a huge problem. I hope you read that.

Since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen from 288ppm to 414ppm. This means that in this very short time, humans are responsible for an increase in CO2 levels of almost 45%. This figure is also confirmed in the fourth link you posted.

Calculated differently: 0.0288% before, 0.0414% today = 0.0126%.

Where you found the 0.0016%, I don't know either. Unless you have a source that says, for example, that many more volcanic eruptions occurred during the Industrial Revolution than before, and that therefore humans had nothing to do with this increase.

Someone tell me, CO₂ is 0.0414% of the atmosphere and that's causing the climate to change? I never knew it was such a small number as 4/100th of 1 percent.

Fracking may be a bad idea, but it does not cause the drought. My view of that is, people are the biggest use of water and wasting it. Unless anyone considers agriculture and growing food a waste of water? I mean, starve or flush you toilet, which would you choose? 

https://www.kcet.org/redefine/drought-fact-check-how-much-does-fracking-really-use#:~:text=If%20the%20drought%20continues%20long%20enough%20that%20we%27re,process%20potentially%20despoils%2C%20not%20the%20water%20it%20uses.

If you don't want to read and already have your mind made up and aren't willing to read facts, I'll cut to the simple numbers.

"DWR puts the average household's toilet flushing use at 37.31 gallons per day, which comes to 524,755 acre-feet per year, when accounting for all households.

That means residential toilets actually use almost 2,500 times as much water as fracking does..." California

Personally I'd rather deal with nuclear and the waste, and stop burning coal and making more pollution. I'd like to see more development of clean energy. Then as we make progress, stop using the temporary measures, which are better than the high pollution systems of old?

For all the new modern clean ways that use batteries, what happens when they are old and used up? Is there a waste problem for that? And where does all the electricity come from for electric cars? You can't just legislate the end to fossil fuels, without replacing that loss of energy. What's going to power transportation?

Where do the old batteries go?

Quote from: Myphotobase on May 11, 2022, 00:32

Quote from: Minsc on May 10, 2022, 22:27
Thanks to the incompetent idiots in charge, we're on our way to a recession.

I anticipate that many companies with either start downgrading or cancelling their microstock accounts from sites like SS and AS.

My SS sales has dipped in the last few weeks. Less big sales and less daily downloads.

Just brace yourselves for what's to come and stop supporting people who are economically illiterate.

More a Covid/Putin/China recession... Covid for stopping worldwide production.. Putin for raising transport costs worldwide with higher energy cost (due to war).. and China for slowing down its economy with their "Strict 0 Covid" policy..

I heard old saying, something line "large balls is always an excuse for bad dancer". Blame Putin for all, it is safe bet.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 07, 2022, 19:55
Someone tell me, CO₂ is 0.0414% of the atmosphere and that's causing the climate to change? I never knew it was such a small number as 4/100th of 1 percent.

What is causing the climate change is the manmade increase in the CO2 concentration. The base line concentration of about 0.028% is also causing a greenhouse effect and together with some other gases is responsible for the Earth being a class M planet. Without any greenhouse effect, Earth would be an ice planet.