The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

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.

That is the big problem. People plan/ invest/ elect in time frames of years only. And the current economic model does not function without constant growth. Perpetual growth obviously cannot continue. The free market only encourages paybacks in dollars. It can do nothing to promote long term (100's of years) thinking to save the planet and the human race from world wars and a mass depopulation event. We are doomed. Unless we accept the fact that we need to find a different way.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

People plan/ invest/ elect in time frames of years only. And the current economic model does not function without constant growth. Perpetual growth obviously cannot continue. The free market only encourages paybacks in dollars. It can do nothing to promote long term (100's of years) thinking to save the planet and the human race from world wars and a mass depopulation event. We are doomed. Unless we accept the fact that we need to find a different way.

While there are many unpleasant scenarios that limit human population growth and resource depletion, my prediction is that technology will mostly resolve these issues without too much chaos.

1. Educated and wealthy populations tend to have lower population growth rates. Access to contraceptives, pornography, and women in the workforce all contribute to lower birth rates. Negative growth rates are associated with societies in which children are an economic burden rather than an economic benefit. The opposite problem to overpopulation is likely in the next 100 years.

2. A decline in population is associated with a decline in economic production. Increasing automation and robotics will substantially increase economic output, likely at a pace faster than population decline. Most goods will become cheaper as automation reduces human labor.

3. The renewable energy sector will boom when economies of scale and improvements in automation are realized. Energy will eventually be as cheap, or cheaper than it currently is.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Of course there will be a time when there are fewer people on Earth. It's just that there's a choice as to how this happens: either the population is reduced voluntarily, or we continue on the present course until we replay the Permian-Triassic extinction, leaving no humans on Earth. (And of course without Earth, those in space will die sooner or later.)

Meme-ified by my personal hero, R. B. Fuller as "Utopia or Oblivion"*. However, done properly, those in space will far surpass the carrying capacity of the planet. Stephen Hawking gives us 100 years.

Xist — No: batteries

NeilBlanchard — You [properly] list tidal first, yet it is given least weight in the chart. Given they would both operate in the same hostile marine environment, why would you (one) choose fickle wind-driven waves over the inexorable tides? Moon power!

*Intent operates on the quantum level and yet steers the macro Universe. Fascinating.

[NeilBlanchard]

Um nope - the map in my post shows the area needed to power the entire lower 48 states. Those three rectangles.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by 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.

What do you mean by "17% of name plate"?

My brother's 6.6kW system collects a total of about 8MWh per year, and the only time in the winter it has zero output, is when it's covered in snow. And it is on a low slope roof - 5:12 pitch. Steeper would be better in winter.

I am going to have a 10kW system later this year. Same latitude as NY. Germany is the same latitude as ALASKA, and they manage to have solar work just fine.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Um nope - the map in my post shows the area needed to power the entire lower 48 states. Those three rectangles.

No, this one. Something funny about it. Annually, on the left in TW; total reserves in TW-yr. Everything lines up on a curve though so... Okay?

Does there not exist a reserve of tidal power that would be measured in TW-Myr?

If we replace coal completely with tidal power it would last 900/0.3=3000 years? If we increase tidal power 16/0.3=53.33-fold we could meet the 16TW goal?

There must be something wrong in there.

[NeilBlanchard]

The left are the potential maximums per year. On the right is a total, so it has to include the the year. I think it would be correct to have the -yr on the left side, too.

Here's another graphic that illustrates the carbon budget of our atmosphere:

How Many Gigatons of CO2? — Information is Beautiful

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

What do you mean by "17% of name plate"?
.

I think that's averaging in the 16+ hours a day where they produce little to nothing.

[sendler]

Name plate capaity is what they sell the project to investors on to make it sound good? Some kind of lab spec? for the panels and a sun chart? Solar Star has a stated name plate of 597 MW ac but it only managed to do 185 MW on it's best year in 2015 and was down to 165 last year. So it is running at 30% at best.The London offshore wind turbine array is doing well at over 40%. Topaz solar farm uses more reasonable tech and is nearby to Solar Star and is at 24%.
.
Solar Star is beating the output per acre though at 2 acres / GWh/y.
.
So to replace all current electrical for the US (4TWh/y) we need 2500 more Solar Stars. Plus storage. Plus some heavy wires to get all of that power from Arizona to Boston. Putting a Solar Star in Boston would show you how cloudy and rainy it is there. Upstate NY has Lake effect rain and snow from Lake Ontario and is one of the cloudiest places in the US.
.
But it has world class wind in the near shore all along the east end of the lake. But no one talks about using this. Water area is cheap. No individual owns it. The State can discount the lease. If they are smart.
.
Storage is the biggie. You can mix in wind with solar all you want and say they offset each other but it is still completely intermittent. Even on a minute by minute basis. Very noisy. Look at the graphs. If we really want to commit to wind and solar for more than a fraction of our electrical we will need some serious storage solutions and everyone will have to accept complete smart grid control of every specific outlet in their home. If they are wealthy enough to afford better than that they will have to add their own storage at home.
.
Solar in a straw is actually much more practical since it can at least store 8 hours of heat power to follow down demand through the night.
.
You can keep talking about Germany but just because the government forced the electric company to give everyone with a roof free solar panels and charge all of the consumers for it via higher rates, doesn't mean they actually do much of anything.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Xist

I have not heard anyone arguing for colder winters

You haven't been listening to me, then. Or many another skiier who gets tired of slush in January.