The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

What is about how we humans are living, that makes our population a problem?

Can there be too many trees, or fish, or earthworms?

If we don't stop using fossil fuel, and don't stop factory farming - then we will have massive problems, like forcing the 2/3rds of the people to move to higher elevations, and yuuge crop failures, and spreading diseases, and dead zones in the ocean, and droughts and floods, and wildfires, etc. etc.

We cannot use any "disposable" plastic - we may end with more plastic by weight in the ocean, than FISH - by mid century. We cannot kill the soil with artificial fertilizer and pesticides and herbicides. We are TOTALLY dependent on the soil - we are essentially soil, with the same proportions of the same minerals. We CANNOT treat the atmosphere we all breath as a toilet. And we cannot pollute the water - fossil fuels use an immense amount of water, and we are over-pumping the deep aquifers at the moment.

[NeilBlanchard]

Solar panels become energy positive in about 2 years of operation. They last at least 25 years, and some will last more than 40 years.

Renewable energy needs to be 3 or more sources at once. This makes the system MORE dependable and predictable that what we have now. Germany is about as sunny as Alaska - and they are increasing their renewable production much more quickly than they thought they could.

The wind in South Dakota <i>alone</i> could power ONE THIRD of the lower 48 states. And the amount of solar we need to power the WHOLE lower 48 is pretty small:

https://www.good.is/infographics/sol...all-of-america



We have tidal and wave power, and biomass (things like methane from sewage and farm waste) and we already have storage, too.

Here is renewable potential PER YEAR vs the TOTAL reserves of conventional energy:

[sendler]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That 30TW, is that electrical only, not counting motor fuel or is that everything?

As of 2014 all the solar panels on earth could only produce a fraction of the power Japan uses. So solar panels are not the answer.

17 TW average continuous currently is stated to be all energy consumed right now. Not sure if this is counting some of the electrical energy twice. ie stating the fossil fuel used to create it at 40% efficiency and then also the electricity itself. Might be 17TW. might be 14 TW. Either way it is an astronomical number. 2% growth represents a doubling every 70 years. And I'm sure there are a vast majority of developing countries (more than 1/2 the current population) that are demanding much more than 2% increases/ year in standard of living/ energy use. And then there is the predicted 30% increase in world population by 2050. All of which will be in currently underdeveloped countries where there is already no food or water and India. It's a mess. Most politicians don't even want us talking about this. I wonder if the black van came to take Tom Murphy away.
.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/g...-scale-energy/
.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Here is renewable potential PER YEAR vs the TOTAL reserves of conventional energy:

The Sun is very powerful. True. Placing enough PV panels to capture even a fraction of what we are using is impossible. Solar Star is the worlds most advanced solar farm and it is averaging only 165.2 MW on 13 km^2 of land in the California desert. We need 240,000 more of these to make it to 30 TW.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Star
.
Even just replacing 3 TW of current world electrical consumption with PV solar farms will apparently take 300,000 km ^2 of land in optimal sunny desert locations based on the reports of what the best solar farms are doing right now. And there is no storage for night or cloudy days. It doesn't add up. Please run the numbers.

[sendler]

PS. Solar pv only does 17% of nameplate capacity in NY. In the Summer. In the winter it is weeks at a time of 0. Any plan for a fossil fuel free grid in upstate NY that wants to foolishly turn it's back on nuclear will have to rely almost entirely on offshore wind at the east end of Lake Ontario. Which I hear nothing about.

[oil pan 4]

Off shore wind is very expensive. It may be one of the more expensive ways thought up to generate power.

[Xist]

Bizarre. When I try to quote it goes crazy-go-nuts.

I like the idea of a Lagrange parasol. It would need to be huge in order to shade areas during the winter. I have not heard anyone arguing for colder winters.

What has South Dakota ever done for me?! Let's cover it with windmills!

Make it so Number One!

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

China would be a starving mess right now, begging with it's hand out if it had the 3 Billion people it was headed for instead of 1.4.
.
I hope you can understand that perpetual growth on a finite planet is not possible. We have to develope a new economic system and make a transition to the end of growth.

Perhaps China did need a brief period of negative population growth, but 1 birth per every 2 couples is drastic and disastrous. I don't know what the magic number should be, but it certainly shouldn't be 1:2. Perhaps a goal of 1.8:2 for an extended period of time.

A negative population growth is just as unsustainable as a positive one. In an ideal world, we would all agree on what the ideal number of people is, and maintain it.

I don't see human behavior ever planning for the end of growth. We would never elect a politician that promised to deliver 98% of last years GDP, for instance. Growth is in our DNA.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Off shore wind is very expensive. It may be one of the more expensive ways thought up to generate power.

It seemed to be cost competitive for the UK in the English channel. But I am very suspicious of the numbers on the costs. "Off shore" is relative. the end of a shallow lake would be about as easy as it gets. And a very short distance off shore to get world class wind. But still not as practical as a few MSR plants here and there.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Array
.

[oil pan 4]

The shallower the water the shallower the budget.
In the US the nimby crowd comes out of the wood work when ever a shallow water and near shore farm is proposed.
So if the US builds them they will likely be out in deeper water.