Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

Someone just posted a TEDx video of how an environmentalist changed his thinking about renewable energy solutions. There is enough natural gas under Texas to fuel America for 100 years or more. And, there is always the cry of how rivers are drying up and water shortages. Why not build massive desalination stations and use the oceans to provide water? The world is 2/3rds water and yet we have a water shortage? I think many of the people in charge of environmental studies are short-sighted or just use tunnel vision when addressing these issues. Then there is geothermal energy which is almost never brought up as a source of energy yet Iceland uses this to heat about 70% of homes and businesses. Just a few feet underground the temperature is a constant 52 -56 degrees. This can be converted to home heat and while the initial cost is high, after 10 years the cost has been made up and the cost to heat a home is reduced by 40 to 60%. I've never had the luxury/opportunity to build a home from scratch, but if I did, a groundwater heat pump would be a priority for the project.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

I built several homes in a subdivision that we installed a ground loop system. Even on a subdivision lot they work extremely well and are a lot cheaper to install and maintain than the well style geothermal. Basically a ground loop heats the liquid to 55 degrees and then the conventional system raises it the rest of the way for heating and the AC uses just the fan in the furnace and the heat exchanger. The AC cost are super low.
Yes the studies are twisted because of money. The latest political thoughts must be used to get grants. When the political winds change so does the supposed science.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If only it were that easy. From what I've heard, desalinization uses a huge amount of energy, and what do you do with all that salt?

https://healthebay.org/sites/default/files/Desalination%20FAQ%20Sheet_final.pdf

I looked into geothermal after someone talked about it online. Again, there are problems associated with that. I think the biggest problem is being able to get away from oil and coal. There are people who want us to keep using that.

https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/geothermal-energy/pros-and-cons

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another." It is the physical law of Energy Conservation. Mankind is quite good at taking one problem and turning it into several others. The quest for "clean energy" will be just another one of them.

The real problem facing all life on this planet is pollution and the destruction of Nature's way of healing itself. Think about this for a moment, India has approximately 2.8 billion people without toilets, and they throw their dead into the river that they rely on as a source of water. Where do you think all of that human waste goes?

We are doing a great job of deforestation which is reducing Nature's lungs that produce the oxygen that life depends on. We are aware of the droughts yet we pollute the freshwater and our oceans. We overfish and destroy the ability of the fish we feed on to grow to maturity and reproduce. We deplete the nutrients of the soils that grow our food which results in the need to add artificial chemicals including insecticides to produce the next crops.

There are over 6,000 products that we use or rely on to be used that are derived from crude and natural gas. The change in lifestyle is never mentioned when the "anti-fossil fuel" advocates preach the need to move to electric vehicles. The pollution from consuming fossil fuels will not bring an end to life on earth. Drowning in our own filth with no fresh water to drink will bring an end to life on earth. On the bright side, the earth will return to its grand self in about 10,000 years after we are gone.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Correct. Humans have been destroying their home ever since they arrived. And now, people are looking for another planet to colonize. Our "intelligence" hasn't done us much good. Greed and aggression are leading us to destruction.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

I agree with you and want to add that one major volcano eruption destroys a crap load of air. I personally think we are fleas on the big dog and it will allow us to remove ourselves and as you state be fine in a bit. It makes me laugh that we think we can predict climate change when the cycles are tens of thousands of years long with a computer and a hundred years of data

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

"A global temperature record published on 26 September in Nature1 extends 2 million years into the past — the longest continuous log yet published — and has sparked debate about how Earth's climate will change in the future."

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.20673

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

There are a number of technologies in addition to desalination to provide fresh, drinkable water. They all have drawbacks, but there is no reason to think those drawbacks can’t be mitigated. A combination of those technologies should go a long way toward a solution to the water shortage.
I think what the major reason for not pursuing this avenue is probably the initial cost outlay. Company executives and stockholders would rather put that money in their pocket rather than spend it on those projects. So they kick the can down the road.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

The natural gas under Texas would have been exploited by now if it were profitable to do so.

Jerry mentions greed and Mac says companies "kick the can down the road." Today's profits are all that matters to the already-rich, and wannabe rich.

As for the 10-thousand year cycles, you have to consider the impact 8 billion people make this century. But, people will adapt and future generations won't miss what we have enjoyed in our lifetimes, just like most of us don't miss homes without plumbing or electricity.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

.

I agree wholeheartedly with you concerning pollution of our waterways, our oceans and deforestation, but regarding burning fossil fuels, not so much. I completely agree that we need fossil fuels for many products such as plastics, but I think the evidence is clear that the planet is warming (with eventual major consequences for coastal cities and property such as Miami and NYC) and that burning fossil fuels contributes to it. Rather than make the argument and counter the classic responses that (a) the earth’s climate has natural cycles, and this is a naturally occurring phenomena, or (b) that we have such short history of climate data that we cannot accurately draw conclusions or predict anything, let me refer you to this NY Times article, and in particular the links therein concerning whether or not climate change (which even the most politically conservatives are being forced to acknowledge) is being exacerbated by man. I find these scientific arguments compelling, but you may not: https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

Sippyjug, you made some very good points but without any suggested alternatives. I suggest that first of all, we give up our cameras. Plastic bodies and components requires oil, magnesium frames require mining which also requires oil as well as environmental impacts, batteries require rare metals that take exorbitant amounts of energy in mining and processing, glass requires huge amounts of energy to melt sand (rock) as well as energy to fashion and polish, memory cards require gold for the contacts, circuit boards and components contain lead, copper, silver and other metals. I could go on and on.

When the people were protesting the Dakota Access pipeline, how did the protesters get there? Cars, trucks, planes, trains all required petroleum fuels. Ride a bicycle? It required fossil fuels to produce the metal, paint, tires and so on. Walk? Where did the rubber-plastic soles come from?

People are really good at telling others what they should be giving up in order to “save” the world, but don’t want to give up anything themselves.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

Look around in the room you are in. There is not one thing in that room that wasn't made from or got there without fossil fuels.

Red6

Some of these ideas are great as long as they are on a small scale. Using these ideas for millions of people, however, often proves to be challenging at least or even more destructive than current methods.

Desalination for example on an industrial scale is feasible but consumes a tremendous amount of energy. This could possibly be accomplished using solar energy but there are other factors there also. The biggest issue is the disposal of the salt slurry. The leftover salt is usually in the form of a slurry which is very toxic to both animal and plant life. It is usually considered to be hazardous waste and is treated as such. Producing water for major cities would necessitate the proper disposal of this waste byproduct.

Geothermal is a good idea but would it work for a city the size of New York or Atlanta? Iceland's geothermal energy is unique and is probably not applicable to most areas. Besides who knows what would happen if millions of people were hooked up to a geothermal system cooling and heating their homes by using the 55-degree ground temps. Would it alter the ground environment and affect some other system in the biosphere? Most likely it would.

There are many good ideas for energy production that work on a small scale. Taking them to a global scale presents many new problems and issues.

Caribou Loc: St. Louis, MO

This is such a complex topic that we seem to be able to address it only in fits and starts. Humankind can't help leaving a footprint in our desire to live as comfortably as possible. In today's political environment we know only extremes which won't get us anywhere. I think one significant step everyone could practice would simply be less waste. We are a very wasteful culture. Often it's cheaper and easier to throw something away than it is to fix it. We are a disposable society. I cringe when I see some of the packaging of consumer items. It all gets thrown out. And don't get me started on disposable plastic water bottles. I refuse to use them. The oil companies sold us on the idea of re-cycling plastics but very little of it is actually re-cycled. They knew that all along. Many of us drive needlessly gigantic gas-guzzling vehicles. Appliances are made with a short life span. Styles change and old fashions are discarded. I read a book recently on the staggering amount of clothing and numerous other items (including furniture) that end up in landfills because nobody wants it. We could all crank the thermostat up a degree or two in summer and down a bit in winter. It just seems to me that many people are wasteful because they can afford to be. It just makes no sense. I enjoy the comfort and convenience that 21st century technology can give me but I try to do it with an eye toward being a good steward of what we have.

fourlocks Loc: Londonderry, NH

Root cause analysis, my friends. It all comes down to humans making just too many babies for the planet to support. We keep on squeezing more and more resources from the planet to support an ever growing population. Trouble is, our cleverness can only take us just so far and we've exceeded what we can sustainably support yet we continue to increase our numbers.

Put a small population of yeast in a sealed container of sugar water and they'll exponentially increase their population, consuming all the sugar, until their own waste product (alcohol) kills the entire population. In our case, the earth is our sealed container.