The great thing about the corona virus

[gordo]

For God's sake, what can Average Joe/Jill do about energy sources?

A great deal. The web is full of practical ideas on the topic.

Just please, don't come up with the tired 'vote for the good' mantra

I'd never do that.

If you need some hard facts, just look up what the the Green Party has caused to Germany, with their insistence of shutting down all the nuclear power sources, in the wake of Fukushima.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

This is why I don't understand your hooray optimism.

I didn't think I was being optimistic as I'm not. I just think that the virus has revealed that there is the possibility of positive lifestyle change by making better lifestyle choices. I didn't say anyone would.

 

[smalloffsetpressexperts]

No. More like, for one example, a politician promoting coal as an energy source by using the marketing term “ beautiful clean coal” to benefit himself immediately by swaying public opinion in order to gain votes while ignoring the long range negative impact of the use of that fossil fuel.

What politician made that statement?
Trump: We've ended the war on coal

 

[gordo]

What politician made that statement?
Trump: We've ended the war on coal

Yup. He said/says that. But I didn’t say his name because, like I said before, Trump isn’t the point. Any politician or lobbyist, or media pundit of any country who promotes coal by misleading the public is the issue.

 

[namelessentity]

Clean energy is feasible. It's only expensive because the investment has been so low. Flat screen TVs used to cost $10k, now they cost like $400. Early adoption is always expensive, but if it's actually adopted all of the companies will switch to finding proactive ways to make it cheaper and more efficient.

A mix of hydro, solar and wind could work. And the "what if it's not a windy day?" argument is so stupid it's laughable.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

A mix of hydro, solar and wind could work. And the "what if it's not a windy day?" argument is so stupid it's laughable.

I think world energy growth per year has been greater than the existing installed solar and wind actual capacity. Solar and wind will never catch up and meet the future demand. The problem with wind and solar is that it is intermittent and for it to effectively work, it would need energy storage technology, which is not available yet. It is not laughable. It is a well understood limitation and technical challenge.

Some form of nuclear is going to be required.

 

[namelessentity]

I think world energy growth per year has been greater than the existing installed solar and wind actual capacity. Solar and wind will never catch up and meet the future demand. The problem with wind and solar is that it is intermittent and for it to effectively work, it would need energy storage technology, which is not available yet. It is not laughable. It is a well understood limitation and technical challenge.

Some form of nuclear is going to be required.

There's a lot of science and articles saying otherwise, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who has already made up their mind.

 

[smalloffsetpressexperts]

Clean energy is feasible. It's only expensive because the investment has been so low. Flat screen TVs used to cost $10k, now they cost like $400. Early adoption is always expensive, but if it's actually adopted all of the companies will switch to finding proactive ways to make it cheaper and more efficient.

A mix of hydro, solar and wind could work. And the "what if it's not a windy day?" argument is so stupid it's laughable.

Yes I may have gone to far sorry about that., dealing with superior brains like yours would be an asset to the world I had no clue the experts in this forum are brilliant, discussions like this increase the traffic and yes Cha Ching

 

[keith1]

Here we have a fine gentleman who has taken the time to explain Covid-19 rather eloquently and in simple to understand language:

 

[Slammer]

Gordo let me ask you a question. Your entire family and loved ones are on a bus, the bus crashes all people require a hospital. The hospitals power is down 70% due to no wind and cloudy days. the battery's are drained.
There is a pile of coal or other fossil fuel that would restore all power. Your choice is wait for a windy, sunny day to supply power and hope the loved ones do not perish. Or use the fossil fuel and save them all, how would you decide?

Your example is a bit wonky, in the energy crisis scenario you discribe hospitals, government and other key fascilities would have priority over the general public. Or in other words; a hospital would be running under full power, you on the other hand would have to make do with what you are allotted with.

 

[gordo]

Here we have a fine gentleman who has taken the time to explain Covid-19 rather eloquently and in simple to understand language:

I couldn’t stop staring at his very expensive suit since the pattern is the threshold array for a Euclidean AM screen angled appropriately for the yellow printer.

 

[schenkadere]

This thread is ridiculous and should be deleted. Even the title is offensive. It seems no one here has had this disease impact them directly.
This is an immediate life or death threat. Of course people are responding to survive although I see very many ignoring distancing and carrying on as if all is normal. The world is not coming together in some kumbaya moment. This is an previously unknown mutation of a more common virus, not some rebranded flu strain. It's unpredictable, it's a threat and it's killing people who would normally have no need for concern. Forget about the devastating global economic impact, people are scared and they should be. This is more than hysteria. The great thing about the corona virus...nothing. How any of this directly relates to environmental concerns is beyond me.

 

[PricelineNegotiator]

This thread is ridiculous and should be deleted. Even the title is offensive.

Agreed.

 

[gordo]

This thread is ridiculous and should be deleted. Even the title is offensive. It seems no one here has had this disease impact them directly.
This is an immediate life or death threat. Of course people are responding to survive although I see very many ignoring distancing and carrying on as if all is normal. The world is not coming together in some kumbaya moment. This is an previously unknown mutation of a more common virus, not some rebranded flu strain. It's unpredictable, it's a threat and it's killing people who would normally have no need for concern. Forget about the devastating global economic impact, people are scared and they should be. This is more than hysteria. The great thing about the corona virus...nothing. How any of this directly relates to environmental concerns is beyond me.

For obvious reasons I disagree. I did not post with the intention of diminishing the impact of this virus.

My intent was to note that danger can have important and beneficial uses by encouraging people to take the necessary precautions to protect themselves and others when danger arises again. Not just for this virus but for any global threat.

Some perspective.
So far this flu season, the corona virus has killed some 3,173 people in the US.
For some context, in 2018, 80,000 people died of the flu (H1N1 strain) and its complications in the US.
The CDC says the flu typically kills 12,000 to 56,000 people in the U.S. in a year.* And that's with the availability a vaccine. And what was the reaction of media and politicians? Crickets.

Perhaps the experience of this virus will encourage people to take the necessary precautions to protect themselves and others during the next flu season. Perhaps people will be encouraged to look at other global threats (like climate change) and take the necessary steps to protect themselves and others.

*Flu Season: Up to 19,000 People Have Died; Vaccine Protecting About Half Who Get It | The Weather Channel

You can view a video that put the virus in perspective:

 

[AP90]

This thread is ridiculous and should be deleted. Even the title is offensive. It seems no one here has had this disease impact them directly.
This is an immediate life or death threat. Of course people are responding to survive although I see very many ignoring distancing and carrying on as if all is normal. The world is not coming together in some kumbaya moment. This is an previously unknown mutation of a more common virus, not some rebranded flu strain. It's unpredictable, it's a threat and it's killing people who would normally have no need for concern. Forget about the devastating global economic impact, people are scared and they should be. This is more than hysteria. The great thing about the corona virus...nothing. How any of this directly relates to environmental concerns is beyond me.

More than hysteria? Did you know 25,000 people die every day due to lack of food and water? 25% of South Africans are living with HIV and little to no access to medications. Just over 50,000 people have died in 3-4 months, and something like .04% of the US population is even infected. Even less of a % have died.

These are just a few of the most simple things that we faced before the Coronavirus outbreak and we did not think this is hysteria, did not risk shutting down the global economy to ruins, we did nothing. Yet now that a little over 50,000 people have died in 3-4 months, we are ready to jump off the bridge and go so far down the rabbit hole we will never see light again.

 

[smalloffsetpressexperts]

This thread has been great to share info and see what makes people tick. Hopefully each one of you will remember this. This is why I call out USA leaders in 1985 and on they failed us. Trump is at least trying fix the mess he received when starting office.

Peace

 

[keith1]

Trump is at least trying fix the mess he received when starting office.

 

[PricelineNegotiator]

Trying to blame this all on Trump is some seriously misguided logic. Get your head fixed.

 

[DYP]

Trying to blame this all on Trump is some seriously misguided logic. Get your head fixed.

And probably what this whole thing is about in the first place.

 

[OffsetStorefront]

Some perspective.
So far this flu season, the corona virus has killed some 3,173 people in the US.
For some context, in 2018, 80,000 people died of the flu (H1N1 strain) and its complications in the US.
The CDC says the flu typically kills 12,000 to 56,000 people in the U.S. in a year.* And that's with the availability a vaccine. And what was the reaction of media and politicians? Crickets.

I wonder if this is a fair comparison to make as the full impact of the coronavirus death-wise has yet to be felt? It seems to require a lot more medical intervention to survive than the flu and the high strain on a given medical system caused by that can have rolling impacts not immediately felt or recorded.

It also seems to be different in that its incubation (and still contagious) period can be up to a week while the carrier is asymptomatic. I believe the flu's is about 1 day in comparison. That would mean the coronavirus seems to have the ability to infect far more people than the flu could...and it's novel so we don't have any drugs that can target it yet.

The flu virus exists in seasons. The coronavirus' "season" might not "end" for a long time save for our behavioral intervention.

I don't know if those realities and differences are captured well by just comparing death figures.

 

[keith1]

I wonder if this is a fair comparison to make as the full impact of the coronavirus death-wise has yet to be felt? . . .The coronavirus' "season" might not "end" for a long time . . .clipped for brevity

Unfortunately, I think we're about to find out.