No, it really is. I've seen many people asking "how do we explain global warming to trump &co. deydunbelieveit hurrdidurr". The trick is, you DONT HAVE TO. You dont have to convince them in any way.
You cant talk to him like to your average Joe. This guys is a businessman first, president second. Investment, return, costs and jobs required - THAT'S what you have to present to him. It's easier than when scientists tried to build LHC in america, and were asked "will this machine help us see god".
Trump is a businessman. If some of his promises will be enacted, he also wants to bring more jobs back to america.
And guess fucking what, green power plants require people to lay the foundations - literal, concrete ones. JOBS.
Green power plants require not only specialised maintenance, but also basic menial maintenance. JOBS.
You want to work on further development of hydrogen as a fuel and energy source? You need people to mine and make you resources. JOBS.
I doubt he'd miss the chance to be praised as the first president to invest succesfully into green energy. Hell, you can even ask him to make Space Exploration Great Again.
>Socialist scientists have lied for years about race and gender not being real >Expect people to believe you morons about climate change
Nobody cares about you morons anymore
#MakeAmericaPollutedAgain
John Reyes
It's very possible that the solutions will not make us any money or bring in more jobs than we lose.
Nolan Gray
This. Just because a project needs jobs doesn't mean it's making the country any money. That is a very basic and uneducated view of economics. Giving people factory jobs that a human can do may bring the people more money, but it will end up increasing prices and be less efficient overall. In the same way, giving people a maintenance job in a green power plant may bring more money to the unemployed, but then everyone is society is paying more for that energy because it's not as cheap as fossil fuels. You may say that people are willing to pay more in order to save the planet, but you would be wrong, incredibly wrong. And that's why trump won.
Jackson Morris
>implying those were lies Sex is real, haplogroups are real. Race and gender are social constructs.
Lincoln Adams
Does Trump make a duckface on purpose or is his face just shaped like that?
Also, Veeky Forums supports nuclear, not green power.
Chase Ortiz
I don't think this will convince him to be honest.
Levi Russell
views can somewhat adjust over the course of 2 years, it never hurts to try.
He tried and look.
Ian Wood
Sure it will. Just abolish the federal reserve and begin payments in government bonds.
Easton Lee
good theory
Camden Johnson
You're right, OP. If you socially retarded liberals try to sell your ideas instead of shaming people to accepting them, you'll have a better time.
Christian Rivera
Yeah, we should really start working on that. Maybe we should gather heaps upon heaps of data proving man-made climate change. Gosh, if only we thought of that sooner. The alliance of salty cuckboys and chinese conspiracies thanks you, kind internet stranger.
Charles Reyes
>those disgusting ear piercings
she doesn't deserve to wear that uniform
James Price
You could just keep behaving like a pretentious faggot, just don't expect anyone to listen to you
Dominic Brooks
No, I swear this idea is totally new to us greedy scientists. Truly grateful! #makesciencegreatagain
Kevin Cox
People like you are why Trump won :)
Dominic Richardson
"It does not matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice."
-Deng Xiaoping
A quote which summarizes his pragmatic policy towards appointees in the party.
If Trump is going to promote clean energy because he wants to create American jobs, and not because he cares about the environment as much as you do, then let him.
Thomas Phillips
It's not about what's true. It's about what's persuasive.
Jeremiah Myers
>If Trump is going to promote clean energy clean energy such as coal?
Kayden Morris
Idiots do as idiots will. They don't need anyone's help with that. :)
Moreover, you'd think the next president of the united states would be elected based on merit, not to spite some vague "them". Oh well. :)
Leo Robinson
>tfw too intelligent to convince people to listen to me
kek
Logan Adams
you elected a president bcos you couldn't handle the banter in a Chinese seashell collection forum?
John Morgan
no, idiot. clean energy such as solar and wind. are you just so butthurt you can't accept facts anymore?
look, i'm not really political, but you're being an extremist, and it's clouding your judgement. you're a good person, but your letting your own judgement be clouded by irrational hate for what you probably summarize and generalize as "white people"
You are choosing to believe in a insider scoop instead of what trump said himself. Coal is certainly not as profitable, but regulations has a lot to do with that and if Trump pushes hard, it can survive.
Elijah Nguyen
>Sex is real, haplogroups are real. Race and gender are social constructs. This is equivocation, sophistry.
You're technically redefining commonly-understood words used in their common sense so you pretend that a political opponent has made an incorrect statement, so you can imply to less-educated people that it's incorrect in the common interpretation, and then defend your statement to more-educated people by claiming that it's necessary to use your preferred technical jargon to have a productive discussion, hoping for both interpretations to be simultaneously accepted by the respective persuasion-target groups even though they're receiving totally different meanings.
It's one of the most insidious forms of intellectual dishonesty.
See also climate science, where you people trumpet claims of near total "scientific consensus" for your catastrophic warming scenarios, when the general scientific community is split on whether climate science is mature enough to make those kinds of predictions reliably, and the climate science community in particular only mostly agrees on a narrow technical definition of AGW (some warming trend is occurring, and human activity has some effect on it), and many of them laugh at catastrophic predictions.
Charles Gutierrez
Trump has definitely positioned himself in favor of clean coal technology.
Coal's not going anywhere. Even if we have no reason to burn it, it's a vastly more accessible source of carbon than the atmosphere or something like limestone, and there's SO much of it. With cheaper forms of energy, we can upgrade it into stuff like plastics and carbon fiber composite.
Jason Edwards
You can't explain anything to people who don't believe in evidence.
Benjamin Davis
>clean coal technology "clean" in terms of other pollutants, NOT CO2. He does not believe that C02 is a pollutant.
Levi Richardson
You have no idea what you're talking about and are just venting political statements instead of actual science. Cheers
Chase Sanders
CO2, even if not a pollutant, may be a valuable chemical feedstock. If solar power keeps getting cheaper, rather than producing batteries it might make a lot of sense to burn coal when the sun isn't shining, and store the CO2, then use surplus electricity to generate hydrogen and make methanol, methane, or various chemical feedstocks from the stored CO2.
Getting a clean CO2 output stream is a big first step toward sequestering or recycling the CO2, while keeping the coal industry healthy is a guarantee of energy independence and low energy prices, due to the USA's massive resources.
Henry Stewart
Well, I guess you should at least be congratulated for being consistently intellectually dishonest.
Jaxson Parker
I looked up clean coal since trump started talking about it and I am yet to find any proposal that doesnt have an estimated 30% cost raise to store the CO2.
>If solar power keeps getting cheaper, rather than producing batteries it might make a lot of sense to burn coal when the sun isn't shining, and store the CO2 CO2 is not a source of energy. you cant get energy out of CO2
>then use surplus electricity to generate hydrogen and make methanol, methane uh , you are going backwoards, what are you going to do with the methane? burn it to produce energy? Thats certainly what its used for most
Unless you show me peer reviews papers or running / prototype of your proposed method. I am calling it not viable and something that came out of your ass.
Matthew Hughes
you can spray seawater through the exhaust of a coal or natural gas fired power plant get cement powder.
>dirtiest possible power >so absolutely filthy and destructive that no routine emissions or accidental leaks are tolerated >waste has to be stored securely for many generations into the future >since humans aren't perfect they still fuck up and leak the worst possible waste sometimes >no statistics on harm are possible since none of the waste since we started using it will become safe to ignore until millennia into the future >green Nuclear is the exact opposite of green or safe energy. It seems superficially green and safe because we have a zero-tolerance policy to letting anything leak or letting any accidents happen.
Xavier Turner
It looks promising. However it is still in very early stage and they are vague about how much energy they are putting in. It doesnt look like something that can compete with traditional cement.
Research on this, and similar projects would take money and lots of time, So tell me how are you going to convince someone who does not think C02 is a problem to put money on this? why would he want to invest in this when we can create better quality cement at possibly cheaper price?
Alexander Wilson
>See also climate science, where you people trumpet claims of near total "scientific consensus" for your catastrophic warming scenarios
[citation needed]
>when the general scientific community is split on whether climate science is mature enough to make those kinds of predictions reliably
[citation needed]
>and the climate science community in particular only mostly agrees on a narrow technical definition of AGW (some warming trend is occurring, and human activity has some effect on it)
[citation needed]
>and many of them laugh at catastrophic predictions.
[citation needed]
Adrian Bennett
Stop demanding the person making the claim(s) provide evidence, shill.
Joshua James
>global warming >real
Dylan Reed
>uh , you are going backwoards, what are you going to do with the methane? Methane can be piped around for heating and cooking. Methanol can be burned in ordinary automobile engines with minimal modifications (replacing some seals and reprogramming the fuel injectors), and it's cleaner burning. They're both significant value upgrades compared to the original coal, and using the coal carbon twice this way would cut CO2 emissions in half.
There's also a third major option, which is almost as easy to synthesize: DME (dimethyl ether), a propane-like, clean-burning diesel fuel substitute perfect for big trucks. DME and methanol burn cleaner because they contain oxygen rather than being pure hydrocarbons. DME can be made from methanol, so you can put that choice off until later.
Ian Rivera
>DME (dimethyl ether), a propane-like, clean-burning diesel fuel substitute perfect for big trucks. DME and methanol burn cleaner because they contain oxygen rather than being pure hydrocarbons. DME can be made from methanol, so you can put that choice off until later.
>snythesizing fuel >implying the energy to snythesize ethers is less than the energy to be gained from burning it >implying diesel trucks can use gaseous fuels >implying CO2 is even a major contributor to climate change >implying there is even any climate change
Joseph Perry
>Methane can be piped around for heating and cooking. Methanol can be burned in ordinary automobile engines with minimal modifications (replacing some seals and reprogramming the fuel injectors), and it's cleaner burning. They're both significant value upgrades compared to the original coal, and using the coal carbon twice this way would cut CO2 emissions in half.
>>using the coal carbon twice I am going to call you an idiot for the first time. The energy you will have to put in to convert CO2 to methane is the exact amoun(minus the huge wasted energy, twice)t of energy that you will get back when burning methane. Burning methane also produces CO2, by your logic you should be able to use same CO2 indefinitely for energy without putting in energy.
Tyler Sanchez
>>implying the energy to snythesize ethers is less than the energy to be gained from burning it That's not implied at all, dumbass: >If solar power keeps getting cheaper, rather than producing batteries it might make a lot of sense to burn coal when the sun isn't shining, and store the CO2, then use surplus electricity to generate hydrogen and make methanol, methane, or various chemical feedstocks from the stored CO2. >If solar power keeps getting cheaper... use surplus electricity to generate hydrogen and make methanol
Solar power's already cheaper than coal, joule for joule. The problem is that it's on the sun's schedule, so it's a low-quality energy source.
Burning coal to make energy on demand (or to drive chemical reactions, like carbothermal reduction for metal production) and CO2, then using solar to upgrade the CO2 to fuel is probably one of the most economical options, depending on how things go with the natural gas supply.
Nicholas Reyes
I miss Jeb! Please photoshop one of his hands to be black.
Ethan Edwards
1. go calculate how much energy you will use to synthesize methane. 2. calculate how much useful energy you will get out of burning methane. 3. calculate the efficiency. 4. compare it with every battery ever invented by humankind 5. compare it with the efficiency of growing a potato and using it as battery 6. kys
No fucking wonder you guys elected trump. Its a match made in heaven
Carter Cruz
If you want to store energy long term (like, from summer to winter), if you want it in dense, portable form, then batteries won't cut it.
Electrolysis and methane, methanol, or DME synthesis would be over 50% efficient. For heating applications, that would be all the losses. From electricity to methanol/DME to engine to wheels would probably be around 20% efficient.
It's true that electric cars are more efficient, at around 80% they'd be about 4 times more efficient if charged directly from the solar panel (~70% if charged from a battery that was charged from a solar panel), but they're also considerably more expensive to build and have various practical disadvantages such as charge time, and solar power's going to keep getting cheaper, so that peak energy will be less and less worth conserving.
>4. compare it with every battery ever invented by humankind This is where you went full retard. It's hard to build batteries that have good round-trip efficiency and long lives. Most batteries have been shit, good for a half-dozen charges or so, if rechargeable at all. That's why the Tesla house/grid batteries are getting people excited: that's the first semi-viable solar storage battery. Even so, they're way too expensive for seasonal energy storage.
Blake Butler
...
Adam White
OP here. Jesus fuck you really dont get it.
Instead of persuading him that it's better for the planet, you should rather think how to make it competetive or better than fossil fuels. Or have SOMEONE market it to him so that he engages in further development on clean AND efficient energy.
