Buckeyes_Suck

Completely agree with this. Plus if we aggressively built out nuclear electricity could be much cheaper, allowing for tech like desalination to be affordable.

The real question is how much are we all willing to pay for the PSLs...

That's for both.

$4,404, worth every penny.

There's a couple great podcasts out there on this technology, could also be key in reducing climate change. Once the design is commercialized it could prove a clean source of electrify, slag that could be used for roads/concrete additives, and syngas that could be used in hydrogen fuel cells. We would eventually end up "mining" land fills to feed them. https://seapowermagazine.org/vaporizing-trash-with-a-compact-waste-to-energy-system-that-runs-at-10000-degrees-c/

This is where we disagree. I completely understand the severity of the situation, but I also understand what a small part what we do here in the US will contribute to your solution. You have to look at the problem globally. While it make not be cost prohibitive here to build solar or wind over coal/natural gas because of regulation and subsidy most of the world doesn't not have that luxury. I've been in manufacturing plants all over the world. In Pakistan for example the food plants have their own diesel generators. Even if there was solar or wind (EXTREMELY cost prohibitive) there's no infrastructure to get them the power. Where would the money come from to build out infrastructure globally to prevent global warming? In general the western world is living in a bubble, naïve to the complexity and scale of the problem.

I’m good with snow keeping mud off dogs paws. Would be better if it was an epic nor’easter though. Since we’re talking cars I’m a car guy and motorcycle enthusiast through and through. Willing to bore anyone for hours who’s willing to listen.

That’s not fair, considering you know so little about me. I own a Tesla and motorcycle and live on enough land to support myself and more should I need to. I have geothermal and solar. I’m pretty’s sure I’m doing my part. That doesn’t preclude me from having a realistic view of solutions to the problem and the reason I challenged you to provide is that I’m guessing your solutions are unrealistic. IE everyone come together and immediately recognize this existential crisis and put all their effort into stopping it.

Its not a mantra, it's what I believe a more realistic and efficient approach to a huge problem. You're not addressing the insurmountable challenges I listed. You're simply stating problems with no real solutions.

Completely agree, and I think that Fusion will become commercialized sometime in the next 50 years only further pushing that trend. The key will be that we share that tech globally.

On the first point I'm not arguing to not push to reduce emissions, or that a warming in climate isn't bad for a lot of species. The argument is whether its preventable considering that what we do here doesn't prevent China or India from more than offsetting. Furthermore what happens when other countries in Africa and S America start industrializing on large scales? Hopefully then we will have figured out fusion, or better embrace fission and help countries build out this way. On the second point lets say you're right and money really is an illusion. That doesn't make the things you buy with money an illusion. For example, unless you plan to institute a global totalitarian economy you have no way to make enough people do the things you want them to do in order to either stop climate change or prepare for it. You need money to convince them. Furthermore scarcity is real, and were seeing signs of it all around us now. To simply say we can produce more of whatever it is we need to solve the problem isn't realistic, same goes for money. The most likely outcome in my opinion as that people will slowly adapt to the change in climate, as will most species of animals. Its no different than the migration south that was seen with the invention of air conditioning. Florida used to be a sparsely populated swamp land. In all of this lies opportunity too. Cities around the great lakes like Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, Cleveland are poised to become meccas in terms of resources and climate. So to my original point, should we really be spending all of our resources trying to stop this freight train or put some real though into the future and what it will be like and stop building in places that will be highly susceptible to climate change?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/shocked-thank-god-16-old-190230265.html

Priceless

Sounds like Hill wanted big money to keep playing.

I got a buddy out in Joplin MO who's a huge chiefs fan, going to buy him a Hill jersey...

I LOVE Gabriel Davis strategy, just catch the ball in the end zone.

Some needs to add the old chevy "like a rock" commercial music to this.

Yep, maybe we can actually get some YAC this year from that position. I think that's where Beasley fell short bigtime last season. The wear and tear must be catching up.

Someone’s getting a lot of rain this morning.

Any F1 fans here?

I hope he does all the same commercials mayfield did. Especially the one with Alice Cooper.

First motorcycle ride of the year. A lil brisk this morning buy a beautiful ride home in store.

I’m sure someone has brought this up in this thread before but I wrote about this as the solution in college and still believe it’s where we should put most of our eggs. My argument in college was that climate change isn’t the issue but where we chose to live is. The main reason I still support that stance is that while it’s 99% likely that we’re the cause of climate change what if we’re not? Then all the money we’re spending to prevent would have been wasted. They’re are other arguments to made about some of the horrible places we’ve decided to over populate as well, ie killing the Colorado river Thoughts? https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220310-the-illinois-town-valmeyer-could-be-a-model-for-relocation

Awesome call lol. Great year to have seasons