The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Running out of things(semantics- a euphemism for resources getting increasingly remote- same thing) is definitely happening. His time tables agree with what I accept. Very germane. But it even more important to realize that it is impossible to even come close to replacing liquid fuel with rebuildables for heavy mining, farming, infrastructure build out and repair ect. And what a short amount of time we have left to realize this. It's not a matter of deciding to replace it. It is impossible to build out enough hardware to replace it. 17 TeraWatts continuous. Can't even make 1/3 of this. And with very little storage. Which means rebuildables are giving us a false hope that things will continue on just the same in our growth based free market society. Big changes are coming to all of the social systems we have been accustomed to during our one time run toward the limits to growth on a finite planet. The Carbon pulse.
The sooner we cast off our rosey glasses, or even open our eyes for some of us (politicians), the sooner we can start talking about what to do next. How we can equitably distribute wealth in a receding economy. And how to educate people to get them to accept a negative population rate.

*the last time we 'spoke',we were discussing a 1.5 Terra-Watt grid.
*as a feeble-minded thought experiment please indulge me:
*it's 1988,the year Exxon began to fund their $33,000,000 denial campaign.
*we go ahead and simultaneously pursue energy efficiency,while installing renewables,for a load of half the 1.5 T-W grid load.
*@ 750 G-W,spread over 30-years (1988-2018),that's 25 G-W/year
*if we tried to do it with wind or solar equivalent to 2-MW/turbines we'd be looking at 12,500 units/year,and $37.5-billion/year,and $117.19/capita cost to the consumer/year.
*by 2018 we'd have 750-GW installed capacity.Which would run the nation had we stayed with continuous efficiency improvements.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*had we stuck with Clinton's populist PNGV program,we'd be saving more on liquid hydrocarbons/year than what it would have cost us to have converted to renewables.
*had Reagan/Bush not veto'd Congressional household appliance efficiency legislation we'd be even further down the road.
*had the meat lobbyists not killed the populist Senate/USDA American dietary recommendation guidelines in 1977,there's a very good chance that type-2 diabetes would have been eradicated in the United States,which would have free'd up untold $billions for the US economy.
*it appears that we just keep missing opportunity after opportunity to do things for 'The People.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A TESLA Gigafactory would cost each American the equivalent of two McDonald's Happy Meals.
An 'American's Club' (AMS CLUB),with a $9.38/annual membership fee could support the construction of a new Gigafactory each year.
Batteries sold to members @ cost.
Railroad track would be a penny/mile,same as a 2-MW wind turbine.
That's not all AM'S CLUB could do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*I did find a notation about the Stanford University study in 'Unprecedented Crimes.'
*Your comment on the energy density of liquid fuels aren't lost on the authors.
*I suspect that there are some engineers who are up to that challenge if that becomes the job assignment.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Competive for peak, intermittent electricity only. They have a hidden cost in that near 100% thermal backup is still equired to prevent blackouts and maintain baseload stability.

New electricity farms are not renewable. They are rebuildable. Offshore wind turbines have a 30% failure rate in 7 years. Onshore is 18 years to 30% failure. Grid scale solar PV predicates a 25 year replacement of the panels. They may last a bit longer. But the invertors will need two replacements in that time.


Oil is 30% of total energy and personal transportation is only 30% of oil. Electricity is only 20-30% of total enegy depending on what type of industry your area features. So a complete transition of all personal transportation and all electricity will bring most of the efficiency increases we are trying for but still leave 60% or more of the total energy consumption we need that cannot be easily converted to electric. Do not fool yourself. We do not have it made to just put up some wind turbines and solar panels. There will be a big 2-3X deficit in critical energy intensive undertakings that we rely on such as mining and refining steel and concrete and big agg growing enough food. Our lifestyles will have to undergo the Great Simplification as our one time pulse of fossil fuels leave us.

I'm not confident that the transition could be accomplished without severe austerity programs as is done in war time.
It's political suicide to even sponsor a bill which would produce 'losers'.
You'd need a wag-the-dog situation to unify the population,where people would be champing at the bit to do their patriotic part.Short-term inconvenience traded for long-term security.
It is happening in the market place today to some degree without any mention in the press.Subsidies,tax incentives,etc.. It's a way to deal with a situation,without ever mentioning that there's actually a 'situation.' Wall St. makes the transition in the shadows.Maybe a clue or two:
*'JP Morgan Chase Commits to 100% Renewable Energy By 2020 & Facilitating $200-Billion In Clean Energy Financing By 2025.' Joshua Hill,Clean Technica,7/31/17.
* 'Growing number of pension funds divest from fossil fuels,' Attracta Mooney,Financial Times,4/27/17.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Nope. Many efficiency improvements have already ocurred. faulty compounding math right off the bat. And again, the majority of energy use are not possibly replaced with electric conversion. Personal transportaion is the next easy one. But it is only 10% of total energy as I stated above. So cutting this consumption to 1/3 with electric conversion saves us 6%.
And.
Can we possibly build 60 kWh batteries for 1 billion electric cars?

You're gonna have to get with Lomberg about the quanta.I'm just the messenger on that one.
I'd ask you to provide some specifics as to total energy demand and why it can't be electrified.
Robert Lutz,no tree-hugging green-weenie,has remarked on inductive EV charging capabilities being embedded within the highway infrastructure itself,obviating the need for large-capacity onboard battery packs,or supercharger stations as is being currently pursued by TESLA.
I don't know that we can't build a billion 60 kWh packs,but it may not be the correct question.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Germany has been running above 400gm/kWh all winter. Occasionally bumping 500gm. which would have been last night except it was Sunday. The data is back up now. Their 45 GW of installed wind capacity has been running at 5 GW all day. It is sunny today though.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page...countryCode=DE
.
Jacobson is the founder of SolutionProject.org that green advocates cite to show how easy it is to replace fossil fuels for all energy. He computes efficiency gains from electric conversion of ICE, underground thermal storage, ect, and posts total generation requirements from each source of wind, water, and solar, without addressing the actual quantity of materials and hardware that would be required. He also relies on very little storage because "It is always windy or sunny somewhere". And proposes transforming all heavy trucking to electrolytic Hydrogen.
.
The Roadmaptonowhere, among many others, show the quantity of hardware and the land use that would be required is prohibitive (Even if it is written in an unprofessional style and promotes yet to be built GenIV nuclear as a much more feasible approach to replacing fossil fuel).
.
Jacobson published his original paper in a scientific journal and now has rich Hollywood stars supporting him with no peer review and now that Clack and 20 others have publicly challenged him on many points, he is suing them.

1st-Amendment?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

"Jacobson’s paper has become the bible of alternative energy and is the most referenced paper on the subject used by policymakers and activist groups. And that is scary. Another ideology masquerading as science."
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#5b2b955529f9
.

I'd use 'contextual.'
I can criticize Jacobson.
I can criticize his critics.
There are potentialities either missed,ignored,or unknown to the investigators.A Rumsfeld moment.
This is hardball.Political correctness may be off the table on this one.
Carl Sagan spoke of the cloistered researcher,who kept his place,just submitting the information to the powers that be and staying in the shadows,off the soapbox.
Perhaps Jacobson genuinely feels an urgency to awaken the masses.'Ozone Man' has caught holy .... for it.
Again,if we've put too much CO2 in the atmosphere and we need to remove some of what's already there,then why are we even discussing anything but ending combustion as fast as we possibly can?
If there's a steamroller headed for your baby and you're carrying a rifle,what do you do?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*had the meat lobbyists not killed the populist Senate/USDA American dietary recommendation guidelines in 1977,there's a very good chance that type-2 diabetes would have been eradicated in the United States,which would have free'd up untold $billions for the US economy.
*it appears that we just keep missing opportunity after opportunity to do things for 'The People.'

Yeah, because people respond to government guidelines like it's the bible.

Everyone knows being overweight is unhealthy. While lobbyists are usually disgusting, they aren't responsible for the decisions we make. If you're fat, it's not because the meat industry made you that way.

Trying to protect people from every conceivable form of self-harm at the government level is evil. Progress is made by every person being a small experiment of what works and what doesn't, and that produces winners and losers. Restrict liberty too much, and we're all just losers. I'd rather live in a world of winners and losers where the losers still aren't miserable, rather than live in a world where everyone is a miserable loser. Balance is key.

A TESLA Gigafactory would cost each American the equivalent of two McDonald's Happy Meals.
An 'American's Club' (AMS CLUB),with a $9.38/annual membership fee could support the construction of a new Gigafactory each year.
Batteries sold to members @ cost.
Railroad track would be a penny/mile,same as a 2-MW wind turbine.
That's not all AM'S CLUB could do.

OK, what's preventing this club from existing now? If it's as lucrative as you suggest, the market would jump on it already. Why don't you start a Go Fund Me?

Originally Posted by aerohead

Robert Lutz,no tree-hugging green-weenie,has remarked on inductive EV charging capabilities being embedded within the highway infrastructure itself,obviating the need for large-capacity onboard battery packs,or supercharger stations as is being currently pursued by TESLA.
I don't know that we can't build a billion 60 kWh packs,but it may not be the correct question.

Your consistent error in thinking in nearly every post is that if something is technically possible, it is economically possible. "Wireless" inductive power transfer has been around since Tesla (the person, not the manufacturer), and the reason it isn't widely used isn't because it's new technology, but rather it's expensive and inefficient. We could have had our electric busses and light rail use inductive power all along, but didn't because an overhead line is way cheaper and efficient.

If anything, we'll have overhead lines supplying power.

Originally Posted by aerohead

Political correctness may be off the table on this one.
Carl Sagan spoke of the cloistered researcher,who kept his place,just submitting the information to the powers that be and staying in the shadows,off the soapbox.
Perhaps Jacobson genuinely feels an urgency to awaken the masses.'Ozone Man' has caught holy .... for it.
Again,if we've put too much CO2 in the atmosphere and we need to remove some of what's already there,then why are we even discussing anything but ending combustion as fast as we possibly can?
If there's a steamroller headed for your baby and you're carrying a rifle,what do you do?

I'm all onboard with dumping political (incorrectness). It's worthless garbage in all cases.

The researcher is confined to research and not activism because people don't listen to facts, they respond to emotional fanaticism (Trump). The second someone becomes an emotional fanatic, they have abandoned their rational mode of operation.

So you see, at best a researcher can inform someone who is influential, who is then likely to take the seeds of truth and embellish them to the point of absurdity.

A true researcher takes criticism and responds to it in a scientific way. If Jacobson is sticking to political tactics rather than responding to valid criticism, he has left the arena of researcher and entered the arena of politics / religion.

Your analogy is ridiculous. As I've said, it isn't clear what the extent of threat to humanity global warming is. If you really think your analogy is valid, then you should be on a terrorist watch list as your actions towards people viewed as the steamroller would justify your emotional view of them.

*Clean Technica is a cult which sometimes happens upon factual sources of info.

[sendler]

1.5 TW is the super wishful value which already includes all of the theoretical efficiency improvements of everything conceivable. USA is currently using closer to 3TW total energy. Austerity will happen.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

If there's a steamroller headed for your baby and you're carrying a rifle,what do you do?

Hope it's not killdozer?


http://justacarguy.blogspot.com/2018/06/sometimes-reasonable-men-must-do.html

[Fat Charlie]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Hope it's not killdozer?

Wimp.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Yeah, because people respond to government guidelines like it's the bible.

Everyone knows being overweight is unhealthy. While lobbyists are usually disgusting, they aren't responsible for the decisions we make. If you're fat, it's not because the meat industry made you that way.

Trying to protect people from every conceivable form of self-harm at the government level is evil. Progress is made by every person being a small experiment of what works and what doesn't, and that produces winners and losers. Restrict liberty too much, and we're all just losers. I'd rather live in a world of winners and losers where the losers still aren't miserable, rather than live in a world where everyone is a miserable loser. Balance is key.



OK, what's preventing this club from existing now? If it's as lucrative as you suggest, the market would jump on it already. Why don't you start a Go Fund Me?



Your consistent error in thinking in nearly every post is that if something is technically possible, it is economically possible. "Wireless" inductive power transfer has been around since Tesla (the person, not the manufacturer), and the reason it isn't widely used isn't because it's new technology, but rather it's expensive and inefficient. We could have had our electric busses and light rail use inductive power all along, but didn't because an overhead line is way cheaper and efficient.

If anything, we'll have overhead lines supplying power.



I'm all onboard with dumping political (incorrectness). It's worthless garbage in all cases.

The researcher is confined to research and not activism because people don't listen to facts, they respond to emotional fanaticism (Trump). The second someone becomes an emotional fanatic, they have abandoned their rational mode of operation.

So you see, at best a researcher can inform someone who is influential, who is then likely to take the seeds of truth and embellish them to the point of absurdity.

A true researcher takes criticism and responds to it in a scientific way. If Jacobson is sticking to political tactics rather than responding to valid criticism, he has left the arena of researcher and entered the arena of politics / religion.

Your analogy is ridiculous. As I've said, it isn't clear what the extent of threat to humanity global warming is. If you really think your analogy is valid, then you should be on a terrorist watch list as your actions towards people viewed as the steamroller would justify your emotional view of them.

*Clean Technica is a cult which sometimes happens upon factual sources of info.

'Knowledge will forever govern ignorance,and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm them selves with the power knowledge gives.A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy,or both.' James Madison.
*the example of the meat lobbyist points to a structural impediment to the dissemination of information to We The People by a legal fiction (a corporation).
*State boards of education might have included the health information in their curriculum as a favor to taxpayers who fund public education.
*With healthier citizens,capital could be directed towards the 'impossible' transition to alternate and renewable energy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Since there's no conversation about climate change and it's ramifications,why would citizens have it on their minds? Why would they do anything when Dancing with the Stars or the Royal Wedding is more important?
*An AM's CLUB would only happen if people conceived a need for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was World War-II economically impossible?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My powers of imagination could not conceive of automobiles operating off catenary lines.Lutz's road-based solution seemed more plausible.As I understand it,even the Hughes Electronics inductive charging technology of 1987 was near-100% efficient.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotion,especially fear,is a successful evolutionary adaptation.The book,'The Gift of Fear,' addresses this vestigial,ancient facility.
Since the 1890s,the advertising industry has employed it in marketing campaigns as an effective tool to motivate human behavior.Ivy Lee taught both John D. Rockefeller and Adolph Hitler how to capitalize on its use.
If you buy into Abraham Lincoln's argument that,'to know and not tell makes cowards of men,' then how could Stanford's team act any differently than they did? Climate change is considered an existential threat.There's nothing more important than an existential threat.We are free to believe whatever we want.So far.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Lomberg:
'(Albert Gore's) supercilious attitude to our democratic freedom and contests our basic right to decide for ourselves how we lead our lives,so long as doing so does not bring us into collision with others.'
Do you see how he qualifies our right to choose? Our freedom is contextual.It's conditional.You don't trespass on your neighbor and expect forgiveness.You don't use your neighbors atmosphere for a sewer.
'Your freedom ends where mine begins' kind of a concept.(don't tread on me)
The steamroller was meant to be a dramatic metaphor to touch on just how serious business as usual might be to Jacobsen.
I'm not apologizing for him.His actions are just information.
Molina and Rowland were eviscerated for their revelation about chloroflourocarbons and the ozone hole in the 1980s.Most people alive today might be thankful that they came forwards with their inconvenient truth.