OT - Who is your favorite climate scientist?

nolaegghead

...and then through microbial action.

johnnyp

For all the politicians who are climate change deniers, they sure don’t mind funding the DOD’s preparation for sea level rise.  

Gulfcoastguy

nolaegghead said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

Okay the big reason that carbon dioxide is rising is the rate of population increase in the developing world. Right now the eart is at more than 7 billion people. But the rate of reproduction is below replacement level in the US, Canada, the UK, and Europe including Russia. Yet the worlds population is still increasing. With the exception of a minor increase last year the carbon dioxide levels of the countries that I named have been dropping for at least 20 years. 
As to me I have driven a 4 cylinder car since 1977, two years I spent a bundle on a 17 SEER heat pump for my all electric 1972 edition house, this year I spent a fortune on a white reflective metal roof. Last months bill was $48 for 740 Kwh. 

Now those complaining about about the environment, ask yourself just what you have done.

Thanks for being more efficient.  Nice to have lower bills, right?

Now lets look at the numbers.

Population growth by natural increase (excludes immigration/emigration)

You can see it's above positive in the US, Canada, UK and Russia, albeit low.  Where it is negative is Japan and much of Europe. 

Now by population growth which includes immigration/emigration:

Looks very similar, except Russia goes negative, from emigration, obviously. Still, the negative growth in Europe is still negative.  That means the immigration isn't keeping up with the negative birth rates.

Now note the CO2 release graph.  BY FAR, the areas of large release are developed nations, and we're talking many orders of magnitude.  That means you can have a billion people in an undeveloped area, but they have a very low per capita CO2 generation, but still get blown away by say, 100 million in a developed nation.  You probably also can see the US and China are the crankin' out the most CO2.

So eventually, as other countries become more industrialized, and thanks to China which is moving in like a dog pack on these countries, turning them into capital resources, this will be an issue.

But lets look at right now: 

Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the energy. 

Also, fun fact, we have become energy independent with all the exploration in the Obummer years, but we only have about 2-3 % of the proven world oil reserves (something like 15 years to deplete them if we stopped new exploration).  So we have to either constantly find new (and more expensive to extract, usually) reserves, cut our use, or become more dependent on (argh!) foreign supplies.  Sounds like we should be looking to ween ourselves off, eh?

CO2 usage in the countries you named have been dropping, but they're orders of magnitude above average on a per-capita basis. 

I'm not exactly sure of your point, but my exercise here is to show the argument that the growing (mostly 3rd world countries) are not the issue your presentation of data seems to emphasize, at least in terms of mitigating an issue that science is, with a high degree of certainty, modeled as an issue now and potentially world-altering issue in the future.

And by far the largest increases in CO2 emissions in the last few years have been in India and China. I am not arguing that we don't have a lot of Yukon driving people who insist on living in a 3000 square foot houses, including several on this forum and on this thread, or several houses and Yukons in the case of Mr. Gore. But large increases in third world population coupled with slash and burn farming is not consequence free. Now as to US population growth, what percentage is the US born offspring of illegal immigrants? Also with increased life span in the US it takes time for decreased birthrates to result in decreased population.

DMW

Gulfcoastguy said:

nolaegghead said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

Okay the big reason that carbon dioxide is rising is the rate of population increase in the developing world. Right now the eart is at more than 7 billion people. But the rate of reproduction is below replacement level in the US, Canada, the UK, and Europe including Russia. Yet the worlds population is still increasing. With the exception of a minor increase last year the carbon dioxide levels of the countries that I named have been dropping for at least 20 years. 
As to me I have driven a 4 cylinder car since 1977, two years I spent a bundle on a 17 SEER heat pump for my all electric 1972 edition house, this year I spent a fortune on a white reflective metal roof. Last months bill was $48 for 740 Kwh. 

Now those complaining about about the environment, ask yourself just what you have done.

Thanks for being more efficient.  Nice to have lower bills, right?

Now lets look at the numbers.

Population growth by natural increase (excludes immigration/emigration)

You can see it's above positive in the US, Canada, UK and Russia, albeit low.  Where it is negative is Japan and much of Europe. 

Now by population growth which includes immigration/emigration:

Looks very similar, except Russia goes negative, from emigration, obviously. Still, the negative growth in Europe is still negative.  That means the immigration isn't keeping up with the negative birth rates.

Now note the CO2 release graph.  BY FAR, the areas of large release are developed nations, and we're talking many orders of magnitude.  That means you can have a billion people in an undeveloped area, but they have a very low per capita CO2 generation, but still get blown away by say, 100 million in a developed nation.  You probably also can see the US and China are the crankin' out the most CO2.

So eventually, as other countries become more industrialized, and thanks to China which is moving in like a dog pack on these countries, turning them into capital resources, this will be an issue.

But lets look at right now: 

Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the energy. 

Also, fun fact, we have become energy independent with all the exploration in the Obummer years, but we only have about 2-3 % of the proven world oil reserves (something like 15 years to deplete them if we stopped new exploration).  So we have to either constantly find new (and more expensive to extract, usually) reserves, cut our use, or become more dependent on (argh!) foreign supplies.  Sounds like we should be looking to ween ourselves off, eh?

CO2 usage in the countries you named have been dropping, but they're orders of magnitude above average on a per-capita basis. 

I'm not exactly sure of your point, but my exercise here is to show the argument that the growing (mostly 3rd world countries) are not the issue your presentation of data seems to emphasize, at least in terms of mitigating an issue that science is, with a high degree of certainty, modeled as an issue now and potentially world-altering issue in the future.

And by far the largest increases in CO2 emissions in the last few years have been in India and China. I am not arguing that we don't have a lot of Yukon driving people who insist on living in a 3000 square foot houses, including several on this forum and on this thread, or several houses and Yukons in the case of Mr. Gore. But large increases in third world population coupled with slash and burn farming is not consequence free. Now as to US population growth, what percentage is the US born offspring of illegal immigrants? Also with increased life span in the US it takes time for decreased birthrates to result in decreased population.

OK, we're getting somewhere.

nolaegghead

Gulfcoastguy said:

nolaegghead said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

Okay the big reason that carbon dioxide is rising is the rate of population increase in the developing world. Right now the eart is at more than 7 billion people. But the rate of reproduction is below replacement level in the US, Canada, the UK, and Europe including Russia. Yet the worlds population is still increasing. With the exception of a minor increase last year the carbon dioxide levels of the countries that I named have been dropping for at least 20 years. 
As to me I have driven a 4 cylinder car since 1977, two years I spent a bundle on a 17 SEER heat pump for my all electric 1972 edition house, this year I spent a fortune on a white reflective metal roof. Last months bill was $48 for 740 Kwh. 

Now those complaining about about the environment, ask yourself just what you have done.

Thanks for being more efficient.  Nice to have lower bills, right?

Now lets look at the numbers.

Population growth by natural increase (excludes immigration/emigration)

You can see it's above positive in the US, Canada, UK and Russia, albeit low.  Where it is negative is Japan and much of Europe. 

Now by population growth which includes immigration/emigration:

Looks very similar, except Russia goes negative, from emigration, obviously. Still, the negative growth in Europe is still negative.  That means the immigration isn't keeping up with the negative birth rates.

Now note the CO2 release graph.  BY FAR, the areas of large release are developed nations, and we're talking many orders of magnitude.  That means you can have a billion people in an undeveloped area, but they have a very low per capita CO2 generation, but still get blown away by say, 100 million in a developed nation.  You probably also can see the US and China are the crankin' out the most CO2.

So eventually, as other countries become more industrialized, and thanks to China which is moving in like a dog pack on these countries, turning them into capital resources, this will be an issue.

But lets look at right now: 

Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the energy. 

Also, fun fact, we have become energy independent with all the exploration in the Obummer years, but we only have about 2-3 % of the proven world oil reserves (something like 15 years to deplete them if we stopped new exploration).  So we have to either constantly find new (and more expensive to extract, usually) reserves, cut our use, or become more dependent on (argh!) foreign supplies.  Sounds like we should be looking to ween ourselves off, eh?

CO2 usage in the countries you named have been dropping, but they're orders of magnitude above average on a per-capita basis. 

I'm not exactly sure of your point, but my exercise here is to show the argument that the growing (mostly 3rd world countries) are not the issue your presentation of data seems to emphasize, at least in terms of mitigating an issue that science is, with a high degree of certainty, modeled as an issue now and potentially world-altering issue in the future.

And by far the largest increases in CO2 emissions in the last few years have been in India and China. I am not arguing that we don't have a lot of Yukon driving people who insist on living in a 3000 square foot houses, including several on this forum and on this thread, or several houses and Yukons in the case of Mr. Gore. But large increases in third world population coupled with slash and burn farming is not consequence free. Now as to US population growth, what percentage is the US born offspring of illegal immigrants? Also with increased life span in the US it takes time for decreased birthrates to result in decreased population.

Sure, India and China are industrializing like crazy.  China is trying to increase it's low birth rate so they don't end up a country of old people with disproportionate young workers. It's not from population growth.  They are huge countries.  People are even now getting electricity for the first time in those countries. Let's not forget Brazil and Indonesia - they're often overlooked.

Life expectancy has dropped in the US.  Primarily from the drug companies and doctors cranking out legions of opioid addicts.  Mexican immigration is negative - meaning more immigrants are leaving than coming in...legal and illegal.  Not sure what "what percentage is the US born offspring of illegal immigrants" matters, but they're citizens. 

But if you want to go there, with regard to CO2 emissions, I don't think the number is significant, as we already determined, the growth rate in the US is not high (including immigration) and we are becoming more efficient, although there are trends because of cheap fuel to buy SUVs and less efficient autos. 

In fact, I'm not making the argument we have been doing well in cutting emissions, but we're going backwards, and what we do is significant.  You just can't argue about the numbers.  Our technology and leadership has typically influenced the rest of the world, but, again, we're not exactly being forward thinking right now. 

I don't know if you remember when the GOP protested against more efficient lighting buying legacy incandescent bulbs...or the "burn baby burn" chants...and now the evisceration of energy efficient policy and promotion of coal, even though there's a glut of cheap NG and a myriad of problems with coal, one main one we can't really ignore, it's just not economical unless you run a company, dump the fly ash and never clean up after yourself.  Which is one thing coal companies do.  I like to eat my fish *sans* mercury. 

Plus, who wants to be a coal miner?  I'd like to think we would aspire to plop our fat asses down in front of a desk or work in a safer, easier industry.

Anyway, I'll never figure why there's a faction that wants to do things the hard way and squander unique opportunities in the world markets.  Every empire eventually falls, looks like we're on track to accelerate that here, which I don't like and neither should anyone who is forward thinking.

nolaegghead

Gulfcoastguy said:

nolaegghead said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

Okay the big reason that carbon dioxide is rising is the rate of population increase in the developing world. Right now the eart is at more than 7 billion people. But the rate of reproduction is below replacement level in the US, Canada, the UK, and Europe including Russia. Yet the worlds population is still increasing. With the exception of a minor increase last year the carbon dioxide levels of the countries that I named have been dropping for at least 20 years. 
As to me I have driven a 4 cylinder car since 1977, two years I spent a bundle on a 17 SEER heat pump for my all electric 1972 edition house, this year I spent a fortune on a white reflective metal roof. Last months bill was $48 for 740 Kwh. 

Now those complaining about about the environment, ask yourself just what you have done.

Thanks for being more efficient.  Nice to have lower bills, right?

Now lets look at the numbers.

Population growth by natural increase (excludes immigration/emigration)

You can see it's above positive in the US, Canada, UK and Russia, albeit low.  Where it is negative is Japan and much of Europe. 

Now by population growth which includes immigration/emigration:

Looks very similar, except Russia goes negative, from emigration, obviously. Still, the negative growth in Europe is still negative.  That means the immigration isn't keeping up with the negative birth rates.

Now note the CO2 release graph.  BY FAR, the areas of large release are developed nations, and we're talking many orders of magnitude.  That means you can have a billion people in an undeveloped area, but they have a very low per capita CO2 generation, but still get blown away by say, 100 million in a developed nation.  You probably also can see the US and China are the crankin' out the most CO2.

So eventually, as other countries become more industrialized, and thanks to China which is moving in like a dog pack on these countries, turning them into capital resources, this will be an issue.

But lets look at right now: 

Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the energy. 

Also, fun fact, we have become energy independent with all the exploration in the Obummer years, but we only have about 2-3 % of the proven world oil reserves (something like 15 years to deplete them if we stopped new exploration).  So we have to either constantly find new (and more expensive to extract, usually) reserves, cut our use, or become more dependent on (argh!) foreign supplies.  Sounds like we should be looking to ween ourselves off, eh?

CO2 usage in the countries you named have been dropping, but they're orders of magnitude above average on a per-capita basis. 

I'm not exactly sure of your point, but my exercise here is to show the argument that the growing (mostly 3rd world countries) are not the issue your presentation of data seems to emphasize, at least in terms of mitigating an issue that science is, with a high degree of certainty, modeled as an issue now and potentially world-altering issue in the future.

And by far the largest increases in CO2 emissions in the last few years have been in India and China. I am not arguing that we don't have a lot of Yukon driving people who insist on living in a 3000 square foot houses, including several on this forum and on this thread, or several houses and Yukons in the case of Mr. Gore. But large increases in third world population coupled with slash and burn farming is not consequence free. Now as to US population growth, what percentage is the US born offspring of illegal immigrants? Also with increased life span in the US it takes time for decreased birthrates to result in decreased population.

Rates of increase, yes. Tell me how you would deal with this?  Pulling out of the Paris accord?

Gulfcoastguy

Again what are you, as in the individual people of this forum, doing to personally cut carbon dioxide emissions. Not how you vote. Not what the other guy should do.

JohnInCarolina

Gulfcoastguy said:

Again what are you, as in the individual people of this forum, doing to personally cut carbon dioxide emissions. Not how you vote. Not what the other guy should do.

I get the whole hypocrisy thing as a line of argument - you’ve got to walk the walk before you talk the talk, etc - but it largely misses the point of what will be required if we have a chance of realistically addressing this problem.  To be clear, I’m not suggesting that individuals shouldn’t take steps to be more energy efficient in their own lives - they should - and like yourself, they should be applauded for it.

SaintJohnsEgger

I have updated my aAC this year to an 18 seer unit with variable speed air handler.

I drive less than 500 miles per month.

I smoke and eat animals that produce methane gas.

I'm preparing to move to a smaller house as soon as the wife retires in the next 2 years.

@nolaegghead don't quit drinking. You make more sense when you are drinking. 

Gulfcoastguy

JohnInCarolina said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

Again what are you, as in the individual people of this forum, doing to personally cut carbon dioxide emissions. Not how you vote. Not what the other guy should do.

I get the whole hypocrisy thing as a line of argument - you’ve got to walk the walk before you talk the talk, etc - but it largely misses the point of what will be required if we have a chance of realistically addressing this problem.  To be clear, I’m not suggesting that individuals shouldn’t take steps to be more energy efficient in their own lives - they should - and like yourself, they should be applauded for it.

No that is like telling your kids that alcohol is bad while chugging a 12 pack and expecting them to abstain. Be the change that you want to see.

YukonRon

Gulfcoastguy said:

Again what are you, as in the individual people of this forum, doing to personally cut carbon dioxide emissions. Not how you vote. Not what the other guy should do.

Anything I can. Have done it, and will continue to do it. 

I develop products that have a much lower VOC limit than required by law. I develop product that requires less energy to use.

Personally, for My Beautiful Wife and I, at the home front,  Our energy usage has dropped significantly over the years, as we have modified our residence to be more effecient.

In Europe, you pay an additional tax on the energy you use. Do you think that will happen in the USA?

thetrim

JohnInCarolina said:

bgebrent said:

John,
Suppose we took up those policy and technological changes.  If we do, yet others don’t, is there still a positive outcome?  Or if we don’t and others do?  Lots of politics in play not to mention capital both public and private.  What do you envision as the solution?

If we do and others don’t, the answer is no, there is not a positive outcome.  It’s a global problem, one that will require the sort of global leadership that the US used to be willing to provide.  

My own view is that we are screwed.  We are facing the largest collective action problem our species has ever faced, and I believe we will fail.  History will not look fondly on the lack of action during this time, and the missed opportunities.

We’ll all be dead, so there is no history in the future.  

JohnInCarolina

Gulfcoastguy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

Again what are you, as in the individual people of this forum, doing to personally cut carbon dioxide emissions. Not how you vote. Not what the other guy should do.

I get the whole hypocrisy thing as a line of argument - you’ve got to walk the walk before you talk the talk, etc - but it largely misses the point of what will be required if we have a chance of realistically addressing this problem.  To be clear, I’m not suggesting that individuals shouldn’t take steps to be more energy efficient in their own lives - they should - and like yourself, they should be applauded for it.

No that is like telling your kids that alcohol is bad while chugging a 12 pack and expecting them to abstain. Be the change that you want to see.

I think you are missing my point.   You are expecting the kids not to ever touch alcohol because you’ve cut back to one beer a night.  Will they?  It’s possible, but unlikely. More importantly, it’s just not enough to curb underage drinking wholesale.  You see?

JohnInCarolina

I understand the view that we can fix all of the world’s problems if we can just get everyone to take more personal responsibility.  It’s very much the libertarian view of things to some degree.  It’s just a fantasy.  

DoubleEgger

Those pollution graphs are misleading. The good chunk of our pollution is on the oceans. Unless you address the unbelievable amounts of pollution produced by the maritime industry, you’re just pissing in the breeze. 

https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping-carbon-pollution/

JohnInCarolina

DoubleEgger said:

Those pollution graphs are misleading. The good chunk of our pollution is on the oceans. Unless you address the unbelievable amounts of pollution produced by the maritime industry, you’re just pissing in the breeze. 

https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping-carbon-pollution/

There’s no silver bullet.  It will need to be an “all of the above” strategy.

SaintJohnsEgger

I have updated my aAC this year to an 18 seer unit with variable speed air handler.

I drive less than 500 miles per month.

I smoke and eat animals that produce methane gas.

I'm preparing to move to a smaller house as soon as the wife retires in the next 2 years.

@nolaegghead don't stop drinking. You make more sense when you are drinking. 

JohnInCarolina

SaintJohnsEgger said:

I have updated my aAC this year to an 18 seer unit with variable speed air handler.

I drive less than 500 miles per month.

I smoke and eat animals that produce methane gas.

I'm preparing to move to a smaller house as soon as the wife retires in the next 2 years.

@nolaegghead

You can try and play this game with Nola if you want, but he’s actually one of the more conscientious people around when it comes to this.  I am pretty sure he and Bridget have solar panels on the roof of their home.

DoubleEgger

JohnInCarolina said:

DoubleEgger said:

Those pollution graphs are misleading. The good chunk of our pollution is on the oceans. Unless you address the unbelievable amounts of pollution produced by the maritime industry, you’re just pissing in the breeze. 

https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping-carbon-pollution/

There’s no silver bullet.  It will need to be an “all of the above” strategy.

But you can’t ignore the elephant in the room. To me, it’s an easier fix that trying to change the habits of millions of people. Here’s an idea. Build nuclear powered cargo ships. Imagine the benefit of just 10 nuclear ships to replace the largest 10 cargo ships. Set up the merchant marines to run the ships for security reasons. Expand from there... 

SaintJohnsEgger

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

I have updated my aAC this year to an 18 seer unit with variable speed air handler.

I drive less than 500 miles per month.

I smoke and eat animals that produce methane gas.

I'm preparing to move to a smaller house as soon as the wife retires in the next 2 years.

@nolaegghead

You can try and play this game with Nola if you want, but he’s actually one of the more conscientious people around when it comes to this.  I am pretty sure he and Bridget have solar panels on the roof of their home.

I wasn't playing games with Nola. Someone asked "what have the members on here done" so I answered.

The message you quoted was missing my last sentence. Something whet wrong with the posting. I've since corrected it and added the rest of the last line so that it makes more sense.

Gulfcoastguy

YukonRon said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

Again what are you, as in the individual people of this forum, doing to personally cut carbon dioxide emissions. Not how you vote. Not what the other guy should do.

Anything I can. Have done it, and will continue to do it. 

I develop products that have a much lower VOC limit than required by law. I develop product that requires less energy to use.

Personally, for My Beautiful Wife and I, at the home front,  Our energy usage has dropped significantly over the years, as we have modified our residence to be more effecient.

In Europe, you pay an additional tax on the energy you use. Do you think that will happen in the USA?

Actually we already do. It is often bundled into the bill in less than obvious ways.

g8golfer

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

I have updated my aAC this year to an 18 seer unit with variable speed air handler.

I drive less than 500 miles per month.

I smoke and eat animals that produce methane gas.

I'm preparing to move to a smaller house as soon as the wife retires in the next 2 years.

@nolaegghead

You can try and play this game with Nola if you want, but he’s actually one of the more conscientious people around when it comes to this.  I am pretty sure he and Bridget have solar panels on the roof of their home.

I actually tried getting solar panels installed but my house doesn’t get enough sun during the day. 

TEXASBGE2018

g8golfer said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

I have updated my aAC this year to an 18 seer unit with variable speed air handler.

I drive less than 500 miles per month.

I smoke and eat animals that produce methane gas.

I'm preparing to move to a smaller house as soon as the wife retires in the next 2 years.

@nolaegghead

You can try and play this game with Nola if you want, but he’s actually one of the more conscientious people around when it comes to this.  I am pretty sure he and Bridget have solar panels on the roof of their home.

I actually tried getting solar panels installed but my house doesn’t get enough sun during the day. 

Easy then install a giant wind turbine in your front yard. Don’t worry about all the birds it will kill.

JohnInCarolina

DoubleEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

DoubleEgger said:

Those pollution graphs are misleading. The good chunk of our pollution is on the oceans. Unless you address the unbelievable amounts of pollution produced by the maritime industry, you’re just pissing in the breeze. 

https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping-carbon-pollution/

There’s no silver bullet.  It will need to be an “all of the above” strategy.

But you can’t ignore the elephant in the room. To me, it’s an easier fix that trying to change the habits of millions of people. Here’s an idea. Build nuclear powered cargo ships. Imagine the benefit of just 10 nuclear ships to replace the largest 10 cargo ships. Set up the merchant marines to run the ships for security reasons. Expand from there... 

From the article you linked, above:

"And if the shipping industry were a country, it would be ranked between Germany and Japan as the sixth-largest contributor to global CO2 emissions."


I have no idea if that's correct in terms of the numbers, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is.  What that indicates is that you could eliminate shipping entirely - forget about converting 10 to nukes - just get rid of shipping altogether, and it still wouldn't be anywhere near enough.  Don't get me wrong, it would make a dent, and I'm all for converting those ten, but it might be closer to five ducks than an elephant.  

JohnInCarolina

g8golfer said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

I have updated my aAC this year to an 18 seer unit with variable speed air handler.

I drive less than 500 miles per month.

I smoke and eat animals that produce methane gas.

I'm preparing to move to a smaller house as soon as the wife retires in the next 2 years.

@nolaegghead

You can try and play this game with Nola if you want, but he’s actually one of the more conscientious people around when it comes to this.  I am pretty sure he and Bridget have solar panels on the roof of their home.

I actually tried getting solar panels installed but my house doesn’t get enough sun during the day. 

A lot of folks just can't afford them, period.  I'd like to see them much more heavily subsidized.  

JohnInCarolina

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

I have updated my aAC this year to an 18 seer unit with variable speed air handler.

I drive less than 500 miles per month.

I smoke and eat animals that produce methane gas.

I'm preparing to move to a smaller house as soon as the wife retires in the next 2 years.

@nolaegghead

You can try and play this game with Nola if you want, but he’s actually one of the more conscientious people around when it comes to this.  I am pretty sure he and Bridget have solar panels on the roof of their home.

I wasn't playing games with Nola. Someone asked "what have the members on here done" so I answered.

The message you quoted was missing my last sentence. Something whet wrong with the posting. I've since corrected it and added the rest of the last line so that it makes more sense.

Got it - my bad.  

TEXASBGE2018

JohnInCarolina said:

g8golfer said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

I have updated my aAC this year to an 18 seer unit with variable speed air handler.

I drive less than 500 miles per month.

I smoke and eat animals that produce methane gas.

I'm preparing to move to a smaller house as soon as the wife retires in the next 2 years.

@nolaegghead

You can try and play this game with Nola if you want, but he’s actually one of the more conscientious people around when it comes to this.  I am pretty sure he and Bridget have solar panels on the roof of their home.

I actually tried getting solar panels installed but my house doesn’t get enough sun during the day. 

A lot of folks just can't afford them, period.  I'd like to see them much more heavily subsidized.  

I want to see those solar panel roof tiles Elon Musk promised all of us. Or I guess I should say I want to see them cost the same as a standard roof or maybe slightly higher. Then I’d be interested.

g8golfer

JohnInCarolina said:

g8golfer said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

I have updated my aAC this year to an 18 seer unit with variable speed air handler.

I drive less than 500 miles per month.

I smoke and eat animals

I actually tried getting solar panels installed but my house doesn’t get enough sun during the day. 

A lot of folks just can't afford them, period.  I'd like to see them much more heavily subsidized.  

So the guy that runs the buiness is laid off coal miner. Was out of work and had a construction back ground. He started the business and hired 16-20 more laid off coal miners once the business got booming. Pretty neat story. Talk about doing a complete 360. Going from coal to solar energy. 

JohnInCarolina

TEXASBGE2018 said:

JohnInCarolina said:

g8golfer said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

I have updated my aAC this year to an 18 seer unit with variable speed air handler.

I drive less than 500 miles per month.

I smoke and eat animals that produce methane gas.

I'm preparing to move to a smaller house as soon as the wife retires in the next 2 years.

@nolaegghead

You can try and play this game with Nola if you want, but he’s actually one of the more conscientious people around when it comes to this.  I am pretty sure he and Bridget have solar panels on the roof of their home.

I actually tried getting solar panels installed but my house doesn’t get enough sun during the day. 

A lot of folks just can't afford them, period.  I'd like to see them much more heavily subsidized.  

I want to see those solar panel roof tiles Elon Musk promised all of us. Or I guess I should say I want to see them cost the same as a standard roof or maybe slightly higher. Then I’d be interested.

They're already available.  I'd be a lot more impressed with them were they actually more affordable than installing traditional panels.  Instead they're like twice as expensive.  

Gulfcoastguy

TEXASBGE2018 said:

g8golfer said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

I have updated my aAC this year to an 18 seer unit with variable speed air handler.

I drive less than 500 miles per month.

I smoke and eat animals that produce methane gas.

I'm preparing to move to a smaller house as soon as the wife retires in the next 2 years.

@nolaegghead

You can try and play this game with Nola if you want, but he’s actually one of the more conscientious people around when it comes to this.  I am pretty sure he and Bridget have solar panels on the roof of their home.

I actually tried getting solar panels installed but my house doesn’t get enough sun during the day. 

Easy then install a giant wind turbine in your front yard. Don’t worry about all the birds it will kill.

My house is within 100 yards of the hospital helipad. The roof is shaded by the neighbors trees. Besides I am not going to put $10K of panels on a roof only three miles from the Gulf of Mexico. I checked. The best no penetration mounts are only rated to 135 mph winds. So I spent the money on a reflective metal roof.