The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

I wish people could realize that we can't "drop fossil fuels". We might be able to transfer half of our electric and some personal transportation (until we run out of materials for batteries), but this is less than half of our total energy consumption. Rebuildables are fossil fuel extenders. There is no replacement for liquid fuel in heavy machinery and transportation at the scale we require to keep the economy going.

If we extrapolate current use,coupled with geometric population growth we'll have a relatively short time until fossil fuels drop off anyway.
Some business models advocate burning our total hydrocarbon inheritance within a very brief time frame,with no mention of how we'll sustain contemporary standards of killing.
Capitalists only ask for 12-years to move their investments,from occulted technologies into eclipsing technologies.
There's nothing sacred about fossil fuels.They weren't even in the public mind until England burned down it's forests making window glass for yuppy manor houses and had to switch to coal.Then they set up corporate colonies in the Americas,cutting it down and burning America to make glass to export back to England.
There will be,by default,a replacement for fossil fuels,whether we like it or not.CAR and DRIVER's got a lot of tires to smoke,and the days of liquid fuels are numbered.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Yes - his past actions and words. He denies science.

Oil companies have known that burning fossil fuels are causing climate change since at least 1978.

He does not deny man made climate change. Lomborg simply (and wisely) states that we have much bigger problems that can actually be improved and with much less expense. ie food and water shortages, women's rights/ education/ leading to lower fertility rates, improved health care access, standard of living improvement/ redesign of socio-economic systems to make a more equitable distribution of wealth.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

This latest lithium shortage and the 2010ish nickel price surge shows that battery powered everything is likey impossible and that battery powering a good portion of the vehicles produced today is not even close to being possible.
That doesn't even begin to tackle grid storage.

The necessity of invention is a mutha!
We've lost at least 30-years of development and production to the likes of the Global Climate Coalition.
With a BSFC in the neighborhood of 0.15 for EVs,there's no future for internal combustion.Sure,the Hydrocarbon Liberation Front is gonna scream and wail,and they'll be gnashing of the teeth,but pistons are going the way of the Dodo Bird.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

There will be,by default,a replacement for fossil fuels,whether we like it or not.CAR and DRIVER's got a lot of tires to smoke,and the days of liquid fuels are numbered.

Which will leave us with 1/3 of the available energy we now use. And be highly intermittent. And there is no decent replacement for liquid fuel for large farming and earth moving machines. Things will be much simpler and smaller after oil becomes remote.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

What ever happened to H2 being used as a battery? I remember reading stories that said my cell phone would be hydrogen powered one day.

Nuke could decompose water into H2, and in turn could power and heat most things.

Argonne National Laboratory says that hydrogen fuels cells can't compete with Lithium ion on a 'well-to-wheels' CO2 basis.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by freebeard

It's for load balancing, you don't need the whole output to be transmitted. It's a one world ocean, you need only cross the Bering Strait. Bucky was good with math.

Show me his math. Of how we can transmit all of the nightime load from solar panels in China, across the bearing straight, to Chile and Eastern USA.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by hydrive

The reason why he resonates with me is that he does not deny the science. Global warming is real, and the amount of gases we are dumping into the air is not healthy for the environment.

But, he really puts the eco-nazis in their place with real solutions and puts a stop to the vitriol. I have never understood why this issue garners so much hate and vitriol, from both sides. Eco nazis that begin by calling you stupid is no better than the denial community which rejects the science.

They are both serious problems. COOL IT is the first bridge between these two radical extremes to explore science based solutions.

If we stand in their mocassins,we'll see things exactly as they do.We'll be equally as passionate.
And with 7,000,000,000 opinions on the matter,there's plenty of room for confusion.
And as 'he who pays the piper gets to call the tune',you'll want to follow the money,as 'Deep Throat' used to say.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

but pistons are going the way of the Dodo Bird.

Along with personal transportation larger than an e-bike with a 500Wh battery. Think what we will have left THEM 200 years from now.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

Hydrogen embrittlement is one specific problem to fit under the umbrella of "Hydrogen is horrible."

Some people enjoy feeling angry. Some people like angering others. Some people like watching people fight. How many people would watch reality television\news if people discussed things rationally?

It's 'dog bites man' vs 'man bites dog'.Sensationalism sells.Just ask Ivy Lee.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Their answer is to use wind and solar power that we don't have and probably can't create enough of to charge grid storage batteries that could never be manufactured and drive electric cars that we also cant make batteries for.

Nearly everyone with a physics or engineering background says we need more nuclear power because it's the only technology that scales up, it's entirely possible we could be generating half our power from nuclear 20 years from now.
But nuclear power is bad. It must not be as bad as the CO2 released by bring coal, that's how I can tell they really are not that worried about it or just don't know anything about the nuclear fuel life cycle.

The wind and solar energy is there.
If we capture more of it we'll have more to use.
Tesla is already succeeding at grid-scale storage today in Australia.China is experimenting to find the best fit storage for them.
Tesla believes they'll be able to knock $9,000 off their packs with the Gigafactory.Lithium is very plentiful and 100% recyclable.
Hyundai didn't anticipate the lead time necessary to score enough batteries for their products.
Even the English knew they'd have 9-months to wait for Irish newborns to fill the meat departments of their grocery stores.