Climate in the 21st Century

Will Humankind see the 22nd Century?

  • Not a fucking chance

    Votes: 41 28.5%
  • Maybe. if we get our act together

    Votes: 35 24.3%
  • Yes, we will survive

    Votes: 68 47.2%

  • Total voters
    144

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
In the end economics will dictate policy, in Europe such a scheme for Trucks is under testing and serious consideration by several countries in the EU, rail electrification is widespread there already. The most appealing part of the scheme for trucking companies is the ability to recharge on the fly and future batteries promise rapid recharge times and large capacity. They could have toll lane sections on main routes and should only need to spend a small portion of their time recharging while moving. Economics is why EVs will dominate in the end, they are cheaper to build, maintain and use than ICE vehicles, once the battery technology gets there.
rail electrification is easy, comparatively, the railroads already own the property and they usually have enough room to either side to easily allow for the towers...commercial roadways are a different story
 

printer

Well-Known Member
DRIED UP: Lakes Mead and Powell are at the epicenter of the biggest Western drought in history
Nowhere is the Southwest’s worst drought since the year 800 more evident than Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the pair of artificial Colorado River reservoirs whose plunging levels threaten major water and power sources for tens of millions of people.

Already, the region is being forced to adapt to the sweeping effects of climate change, and the lakes and their surrounding area are nearing an environmental point of no return.

The retreating waters have revealed everything from World War II-era boats to multiple sets of human remains, including one in a barrel, a morbid reminder of Las Vegas’s history of organized crime.

Lake Mead is projected to get down to 22 percent of its full capacity by year’s end, while Lake Powell is expected to drop to 27 percent, according to estimations from the federal Bureau of Reclamation. Both now sit at record lows.

In Lake Mead alone, the net water loss has worked out to more than 6 trillion gallons, according to data from the National Park Service.

Hoover Dam is already seeing reduced electricity production from Lake Mead’s shrinking size, and the reservoir is projected to fall to approximately 150 feet above “dead pool” status, or the point at which the levels are too low to flow downstream, endangering both power and drinking water.

“The moment of truth is here for everyone,” said Christopher Kuzdas, a senior water program manager with the Environmental Defense Fund. The issues, he added, are an “unmistakable signal that people — we need to change fundamentally how we manage and use water.”

The Colorado River Basin is in a unique position when it comes to drought: The river’s waters are governed by a century-old agreement among seven states, which allocates more water than actually exists in the river because it was based on data from one of the wettest decades in U.S. history.

The river, America’s sixth-longest, winds through Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, and its basin covers about 8 percent of the continental U.S. Approximately 80 percent of its waters eventually go to agriculture, but it also provides drinking water for 25 million people, and its hydroelectric dams produce an average of 8,478 gigawatt hours a year in power-generating capacity.

Under the interstate usage compact, a new round of water cuts will kick in automatically on Jan. 1 for Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and possibly California if water levels have not increased by year’s end.

For Lake Powell, specifically, the seven states reached an agreement in April to forfeit their water from the reservoir so that it can keep producing power. The federal government, meanwhile, plans to move about 162 billion gallons from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir into Lake Powell.

And if the states involved in the Colorado River compact can’t agree on a plan to reduce water use by 2 million to 4 million acre-feet by Monday, the federal government will step in to determine the cuts.

“Failure isn’t an option, because there is so much at stake here,” Kuzdas said.

Much of the water policy in the U.S., particularly in the West, was developed so long ago that the era’s different values and priorities made an eventual reckoning inevitable, Kuzdas said.

“We were already trending on this trajectory, but climate change is happening maybe 20 or 30 years sooner than it otherwise would have,” he said.

Some of the challenges facing Lakes Mead and Powell are specific to the Colorado River basin due to the interstate agreement. But as unprecedented heat slams broad swathes of the country, the basin may be a preview of what it looks like for America to pivot to an adaptational approach to heat and drought.

“The Colorado River is getting the most attention recently, but the Central Valley in California has hideously overpumped its groundwater,” Glennon said. “The ground levels there have dropped by 30 to 40 feet — the whole surface of the Earth has dropped in response to excessive groundwater [depletion].”

Separately, he noted, the Ogallala Aquifer, which underlies much of the Great Plains states and parts of Texas, is projected to be 70 percent depleted over the next few decades, and the Supreme Court last year had to intervene in a water dispute between the states of Florida and Georgia, ruling against the Sunshine State’s claim that water overconsumption by Georgia is depleting Florida’s oyster fisheries.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
i like that idea, but it isn't practical in many places. many of the roads around here, and all other mountainous places, have a drop off on one side and a sheer wall on the other side...where would they mount the towers to hold the wires? what about in swampy places where the road way has been built up? will they basically double the amount of road they have to build up to support those towers?
and one truck driver falling asleep could take out a tower or two, which would disrupt service for a good stretch of road...
at best that could be an interstate system, with loads being delivered to smaller depots where either ice or ev trucks pick them up for final delivery, which adds a step to the process...
there are 50-60 mile stretches of road here where there is no way your putting anything like that in place...if they deliver off grid, they would need to have batteries capable of moving them at least 120 miles to get back on their grid
It's another option and applicable to some places more than others, the main idea is to quickly charge on the fly, as one of those options for trucks. In say a decade, lithium Sulphur could have between 5 and 8 times current Lion capacities and quick charge times, still in some places you will see hybrids and ICE vehicles still used. EV's of all kinds depend on improved battery technologies, as does a green new grid that will be robust enough to handle EVs too. It's what sells and for what price that will be a factor. I think an EV that has a thousand mile range and a 15 minute charge time is not that far off, the problem is pumping that much power into the battery with 300 volts DC and 300 + Amps of current! Try doing it with a tractor trailer then you can see why the pantograph trolley system might be attractive for trucks under certain conditions. It should be practical for electric trains soon and more feasible.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Please folks, this is serious. Tell your Representative “no”.

i can think of a few reasons this is a bad idea...but what is your personal reason for not liking this idea?
it seems like it would have a pretty major impact on the environment in the area, more traffic means more animals getting killed,
it will change traffic patterns in the area and i have no idea if the roadway there is in shape to deal with that kind of increased traffic...
on the other hand, more cargo handling facilities are needed, and it seems like a pretty underutilized area, and would be placed next to the next most intrusive facility there, the air and space port...limiting the impact on the rest of the area...
i don't know enough about the situation to be for or against it at the moment, enlighten me
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
i can think of a few reasons this is a bad idea...but what is your personal reason for not liking this idea?
it seems like it would have a pretty major impact on the environment in the area, more traffic means more animals getting killed,
it will change traffic patterns in the area and i have no idea if the roadway there is in shape to deal with that kind of increased traffic...
on the other hand, more cargo handling facilities are needed, and it seems like a pretty underutilized area, and would be placed next to the next most intrusive facility there, the air and space port...limiting the impact on the rest of the area...
i don't know enough about the situation to be for or against it at the moment, enlighten me
I live nearby, and I like the desert. This is another environmentally shocking idea.

The local roads are definitely not up to the projected traffic. I would oppose any road expansion in eastern Kern. That means developers, a particularly long four-letter word in my lexicon.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
just thought of a lovely objective buttress for my anger.

The project would consume water on a massive scale, both initially and in operation. Water is suddenly no longer “too cheap to meter”, a phrase taken from early nuclear electricity advocates.

Hell, I might draft a petition and sit at a card table in front of the grocery store, gathering signatures.

Make a hole, angry bird; I’m joining you.

 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Surely people in this day and age don't believe that global warming will end humanity, that's ludicrous.

The earth and human history has went through hot cold cycles throughout the life, the most recent being the ice age but something had to happen for a mile of ice to form then melt away, it's nothing new in the history of the planet which is confirmed by ice cores.
It will end comfort for 8 out of 9 of us, and life for some considerable fraction.

The end of Rome didn’t end Europe, but it took half a millennium before the standard of living recovered, and a thousand before we exceeded Rome’s peak.
 

Star Dog

Well-Known Member
It will end comfort for 8 out of 9 of us, and life for some considerable fraction.

The end of Rome didn’t end Europe, but it took half a millennium before the standard of living recovered, and a thousand before we exceeded Rome’s peak.
Yes it'll take its toll but in terms of a actual threat to mankind it is unlikely.

Our ancestors appeared 5-7 million years ago they went through ave hotter temps of 8f and managed the ice ages.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Yes it'll take its toll but in terms of a actual threat to mankind it is unlikely.
Our ancestors appeared 5-7 million years ago they went through ave hotter temps of 8f and managed the ice ages.
even so, my mind is on the individuals.

Evolution is good for the collective but slow mean murder on the individual.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
They don't need no stink'in climate change news, they need Donald Trump, only he can solve it and besides, it's one of those liberal "woke" issues that foxnews says is fake. The trouble is it's in the face of many of them and in their backyard, but they have had plenty of practice denying reality.

 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Most people have no clue what will unfold this decade and the mass death that's going to start.
i think it will get ugly, but you seem to revel in coming destruction...the world isn't doomed, but this "civilization" might be...humanity will live on, and hopefully learn from its many mistakes..but the society they live in will end up radically different than this one.
 
Top