The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

Originally Posted by freebeard

It is what it is, we'll deal with it or go down in flames.

This is my big emphasis right now. to help people understand that we have been greenwashed by under informed people and media as to the scale of our dilemma and complete reliance on super dense liquid fuel to feed the world and transport all of our stuff (made with carbon intense industry) that keeps the economy from crashing. The sooner we realize and accept that there is no techno salvation coming at that scale, the sooner we can start trying to make wiser decisions as to how to let down more gracefully.

[freebeard]

Assume arguendo a fixed fuel supply. Note that cars have gone from 15 to 50mpg. If that gain could be generalized, Fuller's goal of increasing the overall efficiency of society from 4% (his number) to 8% would be achieved.

Maybe make airliners and autonomous drone mining trucks from nano-scaled metal sponges: https://www.caltech.edu/news/new-pro...ructures-81373

This article, The Architect’s Role in Material Conservation, name-checks Buckminster Fuller.

In order to contribute meaningfully to this goal, architects must look beyond environmental tracking methods like LEED—which are inwardly focused on projects—and adopt an understanding of global resource trends that are conventionally considered external to projects. Such a broad outlook could lead to beneficial new design strategies and policies—for example, the avoidance of building products that employ high percentages of critical metals or the coupling of a building’s resource budget with services provided by its local ecology.

The story from Fuller's drunken mystic phase:

During the autumn of 1927, Fuller contemplated suicide by drowning in Lake Michigan, so that his family could benefit from a life insurance payment.[8]

Fuller said that he had experienced a profound incident which would provide direction and purpose for his life. He felt as though he was suspended several feet above the ground enclosed in a white sphere of light. A voice spoke directly to Fuller, and declared:.....

Also.... clothesline paradox.

[oil pan 4]

Actually my T5 florescent grow lights are more efficient than most LEDs on the market.
They typically run 92 to 105 lumen per volt•amp.
LEDs should be more efficient but because most use phosphorescent material to make the light white and use cheap power supplies, they are not.

[sendler]

I don't understand how it is thought to be a more efficient use of energy to build out vast amounts of rebuildable energy generation hardware using vast amounts of embodied energy, in order to gather solar and wind energy, transmit it and store it in storage that was built with vast amounts of embodied energy, in order to light up lights that were made and installed into buildings or caves that were made with vast amounts of energy, to light up said lights with said captured rebuildable energy, to grow food for 8 billion people.
.
Than to just let the sun shine directly on the food in a field whenever it will.
.
Scale for 8 billion people. And embodied energy. Keep things in mind when anyone thinks we will build our way out of diminishing fossil fuel energy currently propping us up at 17 TW. 300 fossil slaves each to maintain a USA standard of living.
.
1 barrel of oil at $70 has enough energy in it for the human power equivalent of 4.5 years of steady work. Magic stuff.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

...Than to just let the sun shine directly on the food in a field whenever it will.

1 barrel of oil at $70 has enough energy in it for the human power equivalent of 4.5 years of steady work. Magic stuff.

That's not what humans do; we have to mess with everything, usually making some things better while making other things worse.

When you frame oil that way, it makes me want to hoard the stuff.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

When you frame oil that way, it makes me want to hoard the stuff.

Any nation that can afford to just buy imported oil at $70 would be wise to just keep theirs in the ground for now. In 30 years it will be selling for $300. Assumi9ng we still have "nations" then.
.
NY has unwittingly made a smart move by banning fracking. For now. Until we get desperate for heat in 70 years after everyone else has depleted all of theirs.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

Any nation that can afford to just buy imported oil at $70 would be wise to just keep theirs in the ground for now. In 30 years it will be selling for $300. Assumi9ng we still have "nations" then.
.
NY has unwittingly made a smart move by banning fracking. For now. Until we get desperate for heat in 70 years after everyone else has depleted all of theirs.

Ah, the classic trade-off of instant gratification vs future well-being. I've often thought the US would be wise to conserve what they can; purchasing cheap stuff from other nations until they run out, and then become the big kid on the petroleum block.

Then again, there is "risk" of alternatives rendering it much less valuable than predicted.

I'm always torn between enjoying what I have now in my youth vs preparing a good living for future me. Future me isn't guaranteed, and current me is quite capable of enjoying things. Despite all this, I tend to err on the side of preparing for the future.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sendler

I don't understand how it is thought to be a more efficient use of energy to... [be verbose and] ...to grow food for 8 billion people.

That's the lesson we learned with Colorado legalizing. If you can control the light spectrum (with LEDs) you can control the vegetative and flowering stages of your plants. No objection to light pipes for natural lighting when it's available. The main savings are in pest control and water conservation.

I'm always torn between enjoying what I have now in my youth vs preparing a good living for future me. Future me isn't guaranteed, and current me is quite capable of enjoying things.

I'm on a play-as-you-go plan.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Then again, there is "risk" of alternatives rendering it much less valuable than predicted.

I do hear this comment often. " high tech replacements will make oil useless and strand it in the ground". I can assure everyone, oil will leave us long before (never) we are ready to leave it. There is no replacement for fossil fuel density, transportability, storage, and the historical price, which has allowed the human population and GDP to balloon geometrically in the last 150 years. We will struggle immensely without it until the population comes back down to a sustainable level. And we learn to get along.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by freebeard

That's the lesson we learned with Colorado legalizing. If you can control the light spectrum (with LEDs) you can control the vegetative and flowering stages of your plants.

As long as you first have the energy surpluses to build all of this high tech hardware and buildings. And a rock steady grid to power it all afterwards day and night at the flick of a switch. installing buildings and grow lights to make food for 8 billion people is quite a different scale to growing a few tons of pot.