HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 12:00 AM
Caliplanner1 Caliplanner1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
No, we haven't.
...???...are you saying "no we haven't"...i.e. the technology (re: nuclear) as a functional outcome of industrialization to destroy the Earth???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 12:30 AM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is offline
Make America Great Again!
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
...???...are you saying "no we haven't"...i.e. the technology (re: nuclear) as a functional outcome of industrialization to destroy the Earth???
You said:

"so in 150 years has mankind been able to destroy the world"

and obviously mankind has not destroyed the world.
__________________
In the heart of a busy metropolis skyscrapers are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 12:41 AM
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
Just because something may not be intuitive to you doesn't mean it's not true. The whole idea that people are being alarmist makes no sense when climate change will lead to more serious weather events, extinctions, ocean acidification and sea level rise- all things we are seeing and all day alarming.

The idea that we can't have a big impact on our planet is totally false. Consider the amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, coupled with reduced carbon storage as forests are cut down and droughts and wildfires become common. The idea that we can seriously impact atmospheric CO2 isn't unreasonable, especially considering how minor a change would be needed to throw everything out of whack.

Germany's problems with renewables stem from a lack of storage something which has just recently reached utility scale for batteries.

In the end the picture that was posted makes the entire point, transitioning to a cleaner economy has no net negatives, so not doing so isnt justifiable even if you are a climate change denier (when we discuss climate change we are really discussing Anthropogenic climate change)
It has the net negative of requiring investment $$$. However, continuing to use fossil fuels needs investment $$$ into unconventional fossil fuels.

It doesn't totally cancel out, but the economic impact IS there.

Also, until very recently, renewables have been more costly than fossil fuels. The argument was that investing into renewables, would thus hurt the world's poor because the cheaper option was not used.

I personally think Germany's program was too pre-emptive. If they wanted to be a green leader, they should have kept the nuclear plants (most scientists I've heard agree that nuclear is one of the better solutions to the climate/energy crisis- it's the environmentalists that hate it), and poured money into R+D into green fuels and storage options-or built natural gas plants to cover for the troughs in production.

Now they are building more coal plants to cut down on energy costs and provide consistent power, like a dieter eating salad, then dripping it with copious amounts for cream sauce.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
I find that very hard to believe. So in the 150 years of intense human industrial activity we've managed to stop an ice age from beginning?

Other scientists say that the climate would be more like it was around 1700, not having changed much since then.


I don't deny that the climate is changing. I just don't buy into the alarmist and exaggerated claims coming from the climate change lobby. And I still haven't gotten a straight answer with scientific backing on how much of climate change is man-made. Nor have I gotten a straight answer with any scientific backing on how much any of what the climate change lobby wants to impose on us through taxation and more government control will actually achieve.
Well, I've given you it. Look below.

And I don't buy into alarmism either, but at the same time, I believe it's a big long-term issue that we should be prudent in thinking and adopting to.

Considering ice ages and interglacials shift in the matter of hundreds of years. 300 years is a painfully tiny time scale in a geological scale. usually you talk about thousands, or hundreds of thousands.

Considering that's the timescale global warming is at, it's alarming to climate scientists, and sticks out like a sore thumb.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-last-ice-age/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
Yes, in recent years the critical mass of "green" technologies has made the climate change (business) paradigm profitable. But many holding on to the old carbon based technologies (e.g. coal and oil companies/conventional hydrocarbon combustion cars etc.) still may see climate change as a threat (to their survival).
I don't see why the oil companies couldn't adapt. Isn't that part of capitalism? (irony, lol)

They can't sell H2 and biofuel? Too bad electric is taking off faster than celluose biofuel. But we'll always need the denser liquid fuels for planes, rockets, and ships.


Also, there's a massive green energy lobby as well- something everyone making this argument needs to take into account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
In general all these questions can be answered. I think this whole ideology of "without absolute certainty we cannot make a decision" is very dangerous. When all the data points to humans having a major impact on creating the problem of climate change there isnt much debate to be had (though dont tell US Republicans this). And since we created this problem it naturally follows that we can fix it.

Even if the overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus isnt adequately convincing, what skim of your back is it to at least make small adjustments and include minor measures to care for such eventualities?
People who deny climate change argue the investment in green energy is better spent elsewhere.

A little late when we've already spent so much...

And this is coming from someone who argues that the far-left cares way too much about climate change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
I'm not asking to predict an exact day, I know that's impossible which is why I never take the "in 25 years x will happen" alarmist BS spun by the climate change lobby.

All I'm asking is if human activity is the cause of climate change, how much of it does it cause? 100%, 70%, 50%, 5%?

What would the weather be like if humans didn't exist? We know that climate changes in cycles, but how much would it have changed without humans?

If we actually implement the most aggressive actions to mitigate climate change, how much will it achieve? Will it reduce effects by 100%, 70%, 50%, 5%?

No climate change proponent can answer any of those questions.
The spinners are mostly the product of yellow Journalism. It's the same reason people in the 70s made alarmist statements about Global Cooling- the global 'warm period' would be ending, if you didn't account for anthropomorphic CO2.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...000-years.html

We've delayed it quite a bit, so at least we won't worry about freezing to death.






How much are humans impacting climate change? Again, it's the wrong question. No one can give an exact number.

Again, back to the gaining weight analogy- how much is that extra dessert impacting your weight? Your metabolism varies over time. So making an exact number is dumb.





I honestly think we have bigger near-term issues than global warming, and that we should slap a carbon tax and let the free market handle things for the most part, it's been doing a pretty good job of handling the issue of expensive renewables (the main problem is now invariability, not cost- Wind power is now cheaper than Coal and Natural Gas).

Which is something that can and probably will be solved by smart electric cars, home fuel cells/batteries, hydroelectric pumping power plants (essentially giant water batteries), and backup fossil fuel power plants.

The economics are quickly starting to play out, and we should have a massive shift from the current Coal> Gas Conversion the world is going though due to cheap gas, to Gas+Oil> Renewables in the relatively near future (2030-40?)



I honestly wonder if LNG proponents take that into account. We could very well end up with a bunch of infrastructure that only is used for a few years, before demand shrivels up, and they'll have to start being shut down.



At least the taxpayer isn't paying for it. But it really is a shame. One day, Deltaport Terminal 3 will just be made on top of the Westshore Terminal, because no one will use coal for energy, except the poorest nations.





The most aggressive policies?

The most aggressive policy would be shutting down industrial production entirely, killing off 6 Billion people, and going back to per-industrial farming.

It would still not stop global warming, because the CO2 and CH4 will hang around for centuries, and the CH4 from permafrost marshes will continue to be released.

However, that would keep up below 3 Degrees climate change.

I remember playing Fate of the World and purposefully destroying the Global economy to reduce carbon emissions to get the "Below 3 Degrees Achievement". Poor mortals
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 12:41 AM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 602
Why is this even a debate that's being had, this isn't Fox News. Overwhelming evidence points to significatnman made climate change (hate saying this)being real . How much are we causing? (The rate of change would suggest a significant amount)

Anyways now that we've debated scientific facts for half a page, figuring out how our region reacts to our problems is important. With increasing drought conditions year over year we are going to need to be smart about managing our water supply, increasingly so.

I too agree that alarmism is often extreme however when dealing with issues that potentially affect the future of our planet for millennia falling on the side of alarm is usually much better than shrugging it off and embracing complacency.

Last edited by Reecemartin; Mar 3, 2017 at 1:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 12:54 AM
djmk's Avatar
djmk djmk is offline
victory in near
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post

The thing about natural sources of greenhouse gases is that they're generally prone to stabilise and be sequester at roughly the same rate as they're released. CO2 released by geology also tends to be balanced out by the sequestered CO2 for instance.
maybe not methane. if the arctic reserves under the permafrost get unlocked, that might get ugly.
__________________
i have no idea what's going on
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 1:30 AM
Caliplanner1 Caliplanner1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
You said:

"so in 150 years has mankind been able to destroy the world"

and obviously mankind has not destroyed the world.
LOL....being "able" to do something is not the same as actually "doing something". Hence, my assertion is based on "being ABLE" to destroy the world via the (nuclear) technological fruits of the industrial revolution going forward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 1:31 AM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 602
We really need to get ourselves back onto water infrastructure.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 1:52 AM
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 296
How viable is a seawall at the edges of Sturgeon Bank, Spanish Bank, Roberts Bank, and Boundary Bay to help slow their rate of erosion due to climate change?

Especially Roberts Bank, since we need to keep it structurally stable for Deltaport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 5:37 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
You said:

"so in 150 years has mankind been able to destroy the world"

and obviously mankind has not destroyed the world.
There's already been countless instances where we've had to take corrective action to mitigate the damage we've been doing. Just look at acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, the huge smog problem that Los Angeles had, and the pollution problems that China is having today.

You'd have to be an ostrich with your head in a hole to believe that we can't screw up the planet to the point of creating making life very difficult for ourselves.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 6:33 PM
Caliplanner1 Caliplanner1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
We really need to get ourselves back onto water infrastructure.....
Foolish me...and there I am thinking that "climate change" (via the industrial revolution etc.) does impact water infrastructure (even if its the icebergs sinking ships)......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 7:57 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,587
Looks like it has already been mentioned. We live in one of the richest fresh water regions on this planet. No amount of climate change will change this fact.

Also as mentioned Coquitlam lake can almost double our water reservoir capacity overnight, and its already set up. The problem is that BC hydro owns the water rights. At some point the province needs to do the right thing (for the greater good) and tell BC hydro to take a hike, decommission their little hydro facility and hand the water rights to metro Vancouver. This is a logical move that should have already happened. It is a protected water shed that is hooked up already, its crazy that we flush the water into the ocean for insignificant power generation.

Secondly something like a 2 or 3 meter dam rise at Seymour would (if I remember correctly) double its capacity, but with Coquitlam lake this is not needed for many more decades anyways. But the option is there. The Capilano Seymour reservoirs are I believe over a 100 years old now.

Lastly. The Fraser River discharges a average of 3,475 cubic meters of FRESH water into the ocean per second. The lowest ever recorded discharge was 575 cubic meters of water per second. The highest ever monthly consumption of water in metro Vancouver ever recorded was in July 2003 and was a average of 1638 million cubic liters of water per day. Convert that to cubic meters of water per second and you get 18.9583 cubic meters of water per second. Less then 1/30th of the all time record low discharge of the Fraser river. Or one 184th of the average flow. And while on the topic Fraser River flow was over 17,000 cubic meters of water per second, at Hope.

And also to be clear, Stave lake, Alouett lake, Harrisson lake, Chechalis lake, Chilliwack lake, and all the other smaller lakes hold a incredible amount of fresh water. I mean we could provide water for probably all of North America easily if we utilized all our local sources.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 9:22 PM
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
Looks like it has already been mentioned. We live in one of the richest fresh water regions on this planet. No amount of climate change will change this fact.

Also as mentioned Coquitlam lake can almost double our water reservoir capacity overnight, and its already set up. The problem is that BC hydro owns the water rights. At some point the province needs to do the right thing (for the greater good) and tell BC hydro to take a hike, decommission their little hydro facility and hand the water rights to metro Vancouver. This is a logical move that should have already happened. It is a protected water shed that is hooked up already, its crazy that we flush the water into the ocean for insignificant power generation.

Secondly something like a 2 or 3 meter dam rise at Seymour would (if I remember correctly) double its capacity, but with Coquitlam lake this is not needed for many more decades anyways. But the option is there. The Capilano Seymour reservoirs are I believe over a 100 years old now.

Lastly. The Fraser River discharges a average of 3,475 cubic meters of FRESH water into the ocean per second. The lowest ever recorded discharge was 575 cubic meters of water per second. The highest ever monthly consumption of water in metro Vancouver ever recorded was in July 2003 and was a average of 1638 million cubic liters of water per day. Convert that to cubic meters of water per second and you get 18.9583 cubic meters of water per second. Less then 1/30th of the all time record low discharge of the Fraser river. Or one 184th of the average flow. And while on the topic Fraser River flow was over 17,000 cubic meters of water per second, at Hope.

And also to be clear, Stave lake, Alouett lake, Harrisson lake, Chechalis lake, Chilliwack lake, and all the other smaller lakes hold a incredible amount of fresh water. I mean we could provide water for probably all of North America easily if we utilized all our local sources.
The Fraser is way too dirty to use for water. We use it to drive industrial-port grade ships on. Also, runoff from the old Sumas Lake area makes it even worse. Also, it would become increasingly brackish with climate change.

Chilliwack Lake is too far. Chechalis Lake is probably too small to be worth it without damming. How much would damming expand its capacity?
Harrisson Lake also has some quality issues from the Hot Springs area. Stave Lake experiences significant agricultural runoff from Miracle Valley.


I mean, I guess you could use the Harrison or Stave for agricultural irrigation only, since quality is less essential there...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 10:27 PM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
Foolish me...and there I am thinking that "climate change" (via the industrial revolution etc.) does impact water infrastructure (even if its the icebergs sinking ships)......
Not at all, when writing that comment I had exactly what you said in mind. I just doubt that someone in denial of such overwhelming evidence is ever going to be won over by this medium so I have given up!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2017, 6:55 PM
cairnstone cairnstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
The Fraser is way too dirty to use for water. We use it to drive industrial-port grade ships on. Also, runoff from the old Sumas Lake area makes it even worse. Also, it would become increasingly brackish with climate change.

Chilliwack Lake is too far. Chechalis Lake is probably too small to be worth it without damming. How much would damming expand its capacity?
Harrisson Lake also has some quality issues from the Hot Springs area. Stave Lake experiences significant agricultural runoff from Miracle Valley.


I mean, I guess you could use the Harrison or Stave for agricultural irrigation only, since quality is less essential there...
Fraser River s Ideal source of fresh water. For we already take water from it indirectly from langley going east. As Langley gets a portion of their water from wells. The Aquifer that they use is fed through layers of sandstone and other formations to create a constant supply of fresh water that will never run out. The Fraser is, in general, a fairly clean river except for the silt.

Metro Van does not really talk much about there water supply system much. We just spent close to 2 billion on new water supply tunnel to Surrey, and then there was the new capalano/seymour watershed improvement project 15 years ago that created 1 large system. Taking water from mountain lakes was a cheap way of getting water in the old days now we have an ever growing population with greater demands on water. Going forward more of our water will need to come from easier sources. There was a proposal from an engineering company a few years ago to build a water filtration plant on the Fraser. Metro went with new filtration plant at Seymour.

Desal plants are too costly to build and run, so the new trend is a waste to tap systems as cost per litre are cheaper. The tech comes out of Isreal. Southern California has several online now or plan to come online.

Potable water is also being used more for agriculture as greenhouses take water from the city system, not canals here. SO as delta continues to change from field crops to greenhouse crops a large demand comes about. Add in the immigration issues a better source of water in the next 100 years will need to be found
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2017, 7:53 PM
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by cairnstone View Post
Fraser River s Ideal source of fresh water. For we already take water from it indirectly from langley going east. As Langley gets a portion of their water from wells. The Aquifer that they use is fed through layers of sandstone and other formations to create a constant supply of fresh water that will never run out. The Fraser is, in general, a fairly clean river except for the silt.

Metro Van does not really talk much about there water supply system much. We just spent close to 2 billion on new water supply tunnel to Surrey, and then there was the new capalano/seymour watershed improvement project 15 years ago that created 1 large system. Taking water from mountain lakes was a cheap way of getting water in the old days now we have an ever growing population with greater demands on water. Going forward more of our water will need to come from easier sources. There was a proposal from an engineering company a few years ago to build a water filtration plant on the Fraser. Metro went with new filtration plant at Seymour.

Desal plants are too costly to build and run, so the new trend is a waste to tap systems as cost per litre are cheaper. The tech comes out of Isreal. Southern California has several online now or plan to come online.

Potable water is also being used more for agriculture as greenhouses take water from the city system, not canals here. SO as delta continues to change from field crops to greenhouse crops a large demand comes about. Add in the immigration issues a better source of water in the next 100 years will need to be found
Well, I thought the Fraser was partially brackish already due to tidal inflows?

That would be expensive. Plus, if water quality isn't a concern as much, just take it from Stave Lake. There's a lot less runoff from there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2017, 8:21 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
Well, I thought the Fraser was partially brackish already due to tidal inflows?
Salt water is denser than fresh water. Because of this, the fresh water from the Fraser "floats" over the salt water from the ocean, forming what's known as a "salt wedge" that penetrates up to Annacis Island on occasion. That's why irrigation water for Delta farms can be taken from the Fraser at 80th Street -- even though the salt wedge exists there the intake is high enough that it's bringing in fresh water.

The water in the Fraser is full of silt, which is why it's not suitable as a potable water source.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2017, 5:06 PM
cairnstone cairnstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
Salt water is denser than fresh water. Because of this, the fresh water from the Fraser "floats" over the salt water from the ocean, forming what's known as a "salt wedge" that penetrates up to Annacis Island on occasion. That's why irrigation water for Delta farms can be taken from the Fraser at 80th Street -- even though the salt wedge exists there the intake is high enough that it's bringing in fresh water.

The water in the Fraser is full of silt, which is why it's not suitable as a potable water source.
The original plan was to take from the aquifer the same as langley. The water in Cap also used to have silt issues before they built Seymour water treatment plant. It was only in the last 10 years that all of the potable water has been treated. As big area of south surrey langley took from wells and never treated. The issue was when white rock forgot to clean the tops of the storage tanks. heavy rain cause bird waste to flow into the tank. This caused them all to upgrade to primary water treatment plants.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2017, 5:47 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is offline
Make America Great Again!
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
There's already been countless instances where we've had to take corrective action to mitigate the damage we've been doing. Just look at acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, the huge smog problem that Los Angeles had, and the pollution problems that China is having today.

You'd have to be an ostrich with your head in a hole to believe that we can't screw up the planet to the point of creating making life very difficult for ourselves.
None of that amounts to destroying the planet. Transforming it for the worse, sure. But the planet will survive any and all of those, even if humans wouldn't.

Anyway, as I've said before, painting those who don't buy the climate change alarmism as somehow against clean air or environmental preservation or in favor of pollution is absurd.

I'm 100% for reducing particulate and toxic emissions from cars and industry, I'm 100% for preserving nature, I'm 100% for clean energy such as nuclear and solar, I'm 100% for sustainable development, I'm 100% for recycling and reducing waste in landfills and dumping waste into oceans and rivers. No one is against any of that. It's our approach on how to get there that differs.
__________________
In the heart of a busy metropolis skyscrapers are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:16 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.