The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I never said that the climate does not change.

So you tell me the weather isn't climate but then post an article about the weather and claim it's climate?
Weather is climate when it's hot weather.

Still no one has any idea how to get just the believers to pay to fix climate change?
If not then the top down nuclear option is the way to go.
If you can't convince your own believers to pay for it then you have nothing. You got a bunch of people who say they care, but when they need to open their wallets they are suddenly on my side. That tells you all you need to know about your fake poser filled movement.

The condition for the comment about Australia,was that they had experienced all-time-record-high temperatures.Black-swans.
Exactly the sort of thing that gets the attention of scientists.
What a coincidence that Australia chose 2019 for an all-time heat record.Not 1887,when measurements began to be recorded.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Something being technically feasible is way different than it being economically feasible. I didn't see anything in there to explain how storage would work.

If going renewable is better in every way, then we'd already be doing it. The website is ignorant at best, and deceptive at worst.

If we potentially stand to lose $33-trillion/year in lost environmental products and services due to 'conventional' power generation,any criticism of costs associated with renewables would seem laughable.
Conventional power generation is the most expensive ever conceived.It could never compete against renewable power if the we were playing on a level spreadsheet.
It's conventional power that will bankrupt us.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

.

Teslas Solar city in Buffalo NY is the largest PV cell and module factory in the Western Hemisphere.

It was supposed to produce 1 gigawatt worth of panels a yr. by the end of 2018 and 2 gigawatts per yr. by the end of 2019.

It is no where near making even a fraction of what was proposed.


Local coverage with video that shows inside of plant.

https://www.wivb.com/news/investigat...ant/1754568826


However, there may be a glimmer of light .




It may have something to do with of Teslas purchase of Maxwell and their line of super capacitors.

I’m not posting Teslas problems to make fun of them.

I want them to succeed...

What it does show however, is that transitioning from fossil to renewable energy is not as easy as it sounds or made out to be.




>

probably would have gone smoother if we'd started in 1958.

[redpoint5]

No, conventional power generation is the single greatest form of power generation humanity has ever experienced; not even close to any other methods.

The "cost" has been improved life expectancy, wealth, knowledge, education... every measurable way of calculating human well-being.

Perhaps there is a future cost to pay, but it's unclear when those costs outweigh the mighty benefits now. From the 1 article I linked, scientific evidence suggests the cost of global warming will exceed the benefits sometime around 2080.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

It's not necessarily believing or not believing. It comes down to hard economic facts. As energy gets more remote from depletion (oil price was $20/ barrel, minus a few price shocks, for the periods between 1960 and 2000 where it briefly went to $10, and is now $50 and will only go up), and carbon taxes raise the price of goods further, the middle class all over the world are getting left behind and cannot afford to pay any more for all of the embodied energy in the food and goods that they need. Yellow vests.

Hard economic facts are an oxymoron.Economists only get as far as stories.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

But the Roadmap To Renewables makes no pragmatic assessment of what this scale of build out looks like on the ground or how much it costs. It is just wishful numbers with no substance. Fossil fuels have spoiled us with an energy bonanza so large that it is not reasonable to think that rebuildables (that require fossil energy for their mining,manufacture, transport, and construction) can even replace half of what we are using.
.
.

.
.

voodoo analytics

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

There is not that much Lithium in the world. Keep in mind the scale of what we are trying to replace. Half of what we use (from a 2:1 efficiency improvement) for 18 hours would need 136 TWh of batteries. I will let someone else figure out how many 1,000s of GigaFactories this requires to get it all built and then rebuilt every 20 years.
.
Scale
.
Things will be much smaller after fossil fuels leave us. Simplify now and beat the rush.

voodoo analytics

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Mining anything like Lithium from sea water will have such a high negative ER/EI so as to be completely the realm of SciFi dreams. Even if we had the raw materials, have you considered the scale of 130 TWh of batteries? Just to store 16 hours of half of the energy we are now using. Please wake up people.

voodoo analytics

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

No, conventional power generation is the single greatest form of power generation humanity has ever experienced; not even close to any other methods.

The "cost" has been improved life expectancy, wealth, knowledge, education... every measurable way of calculating human well-being.

Perhaps there is a future cost to pay, but it's unclear when those costs outweigh the mighty benefits now. From the 1 article I linked, scientific evidence suggests the cost of global warming will exceed the benefits sometime around 2080.

That will be of comfort to those who've already paid the ultimate price.

[redpoint5]

The dead are owed nothing, because the future belongs to the living.