The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

How are we supposed to use less power while at the same time adopting electric vehicles or plug in hybrid?

Places like where I work use some where around 400,000 to 500,000 KwH per day and they are a model of efficiency, most of the motors are on drives, for a cost of around 8 to 10 million dollars and maintenance cost of 20,000 to 50,000 dollars per years.
They're not going to use any less power.

For me,what I'm hearing from the climate scientists,is that we need to stop burning fossil fuel.
EVs are a way to have mobility while having the potential for a zero carbon footprint.
My home is zero carbon.My car could be.
I drove a Model S P100 last Friday.It could have been running on renewable electricity.Pick your poison.A guy had driven in from Florida,to Kansas City,making 4-stops to recharge.
I had stopped in McAlester,Oklahoma for a meal on the way to Fayetteville,Arkansas,the departure point for Missouri.Had I been in the Tesla,I could have been charging while I ate.
If the Pentagon bought every American family a Tesla it would probably save taxpayers billions in the long run.Part of our $700,000,000,000/year military budget is to protect foreign oil shipments into US port facilities.
Sure,Rome wasn't built in a day,and every day we waste arguing,is just more money down the drain (up in invisible smoke).
Gas is predicted to be $3/gallon by Memorial Day weekend.An 11% increase.
On Memorial Day,the price of a kilowatt-hour will not have changed.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I don't know what that is.

It is the MQ button next to the Quote button

Originally Posted by aerohead

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

Reaction videos are so popular that some weirdos attempted to copyright the word. Trolling is widely popular about everywhere but here. We are just a group of boring people that generally try to understand each other.

That does not draw in much traffic.

Originally Posted by aerohead

I plead ignorance on single/multi.
Can I get an example to help my pinhead wrap around the concept?

I hit MQ for each of those messages and then Quote when I was ready to use my words.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

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

If you slander a person's character by making specific claims against them, you'd better back it up with specific evidence.

Originally Posted by sendler

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.

The far left are eating their own. Bjorn is quite left, and yet still hated by the extremists. It's the whole "emotions are more real than facts" epidemic we're going through. Perhaps we can blame it on Disney and their garbage "always listen to your heart" movies.

Originally Posted by aerohead

If the Pentagon bought every American family a Tesla it would probably save taxpayers billions in the long run.Part of our $700,000,000,000/year military budget is to protect foreign oil shipments into US port facilities.
Sure,Rome wasn't built in a day,and every day we waste arguing,is just more money down the drain (up in invisible smoke).
Gas is predicted to be $3/gallon by Memorial Day weekend.An 11% increase.
On Memorial Day,the price of a kilowatt-hour will not have changed.

Oil dependence is hardly the reason we choose to have the most powerful military in the world. There are plenty of net oil importing countries with much lower per capita military spending. The Pentagon makes no money, so cannot buy anyone a Tesla. We can only buy ourselves Teslas, but most people choose not to.

We're not wasting money on oil, rather oil has made us fabulously wealthy and healthy. Without it, the world would not look much different than the 1700s. We certainly wouldn't have the luxury of discussing the issue on the internet, but instead be plowing fields with an ox and the help of our 7 surviving children.

Electricity prices are stable due to regulation of a monopoly, not because it's inherently more stable. Gasoline still delivers much more energy per dollar than electricity, despite the relative volatility of the market.

BTW- The US isn't dependant on foreign oil. We have been a net exporter of oil. It's just that foreign oil is often cheaper than domestic production.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

How much wire does this take to transmit 17TW across oceans? Many of these ideas sound great until you do the math.

Your question suggests that you've already run the numbers and your anticipating some sweet Freudesnshade from a 'stupid' reply.
There's no shortage of aluminum.And it can be processed with electricity from renewable sources.
Hydrocarbons,otherwise combusted out tailpipes of fossil cars,could become cable insulation at no additional expense.
Cable-laying shipping is already in the pipeline today.Water transport is the lowest entropy transportation known.
Railroad track for instance costs $3,000,000/mile.
Cable would be cheaper and last virtually forever.
With distributed production there's no reason why we'd need the entire load carried on a single conductor.
With the equivalent of a Tesla Power Wall at each home/business,we could provide for our own needs perhaps.
All I see is jobs,energy independence,a stable investment environment,and a planet worth handing down to future generations.
Although there's a lot of money to be made from unemployment,energy dependence,price volatility,and rapacious,venal,avaricious,corporate sociopathy.$Trillions!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

Are we going to argue about transmission losses again?

It's accepted as 7% of generated power.
If you produce in your own backward it's zero.Ask AeroStealth.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

The Tesla battery only contributed 30MW (even though it is purported to be a 100MW battery) and only for a couple minutes. When the drop out was 560MW. Barely a blip in the bucket.

So,enlarge the infrastructure? Distribute power generation?
Does Yahweh and Astaroth forbid us from smaller-scale power plants?
If your in the middle of open heart surgery,anything is way ahead of nothing.
The Dodge Hellcat has over 700-horsepower,but the car only needs 30 on the highway.Are you gonna burn the car?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

The point is that they already have 115% installed rebuildable capacity installed. A much higher build out of solar and wind than any other major countries. And they still rely heavily on coal all winter long. Their annual capacity factor for grid scale solar is 11%. Onshore wind is in the low 20's.

What's going on in S.Africa or the Sahara during Germany's winter?
You can swim to Gibralter from N.Africa.Why can't electrons? At $0.0244 / kW-h retail price,I'd be surprised if Germany would balk at purchasing power.The imported low sulfur US coal that they're burning for power costs a lot more.
I just don't see an issue.Unless you're a US coal exporter.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

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.

It sounds as if he doesn't understand at all the challenge posed by climate change.He might as well be a denier.Paid or not.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

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.

If the real climate scientists are correct,then climate change IS the EXISTENTIAL threat to all life as we know it,and addressing it trumps anything else on the table.
It wouldn't matter what else we did if the planet is pushed out of the zone of habitability.
By down-playing the seriousness of climate change,he might as well be James Inhofe.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

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.

What I hear the climatologists say,is that it doesn't matter about farming or earth moving if the crops fail,farm workers drop dead in the field,glacier-fed rivers are gone,tropical disease moves north,etc..
I'm no Pollyanna,and I'm not saying the transition won't be painful,but we can begin now,and have some proactive say in what happens,or let things progress unabated ,such that we'll be completely in a reactive posture.
This is why some are speaking with such urgency.
If you can see all the dots,and connect all the dots,and the emerging picture spells doom,then as Lincoln said,'To know and not tell makes cowards of men.'