The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by Xist

Bizarre. I did not receive any notifications for a while and was afraid everyone stopped arguing. This is courtesy of Imgur: Converting kinetic wave power into electricity

Yup, and there are at least two companies that make wave power machines: one is a large buoy type, that is essentially a large shake flashlight, and the other is a long hinged "snake" that has hydraulic pumps at each hinge. The latter type are in use in the North Sea.

Tidal power is also a working thing - they are usually underwater slow-moving turbines. The Bay of Fundy in particular has YUUUGE potential for tidal power.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

it has opened my eyes to the enormous challenge to replace fossil fuel power with alternatives. Perhaps a negative GDP growth rate is inevitable in the near future.

I know these are radical concepts right now. Two steps ahead of the curve and being pragmatic goes straight past genius toward madman. But this will prove to be true. Welcome aboard. Spread the word.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Perhaps a negative GDP growth rate is inevitable in the near future.

GDP is really the wrong way of thinking about things. For an example, say you have a choice between two things that do the same job at the same price. Buy the one that uses half as much energy to do it, and you reduce the GDP because of the energy not being produced and sold, but you haven't reduced your quality of life at all.

PS: But if you do want to think about GDP, here's a link to an article I just saw that estimates GDP change per US county: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/...st-your-county

[sendler]

Even if it were that simple (population, energy consumption, and world GDP have been increasing in lock step for 100's of years.) the question remains: How to develop a world economy that doesn't crash with a contracting GDP?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

GDP is really the wrong way of thinking about things. For an example, say you have a choice between two things that do the same job at the same price. Buy the one that uses half as much energy to do it, and you reduce the GDP because of the energy not being produced and sold, but you haven't reduced your quality of life at all.

I get what you're saying, but if my utility rates double because we have to build 1000 new nuclear plants in the next 20 years, then my quality of life has been reduced. Not only will my utility bill be higher, but all goods will cost more due to the increased energy price.

Just look at California's crazy electricity rates. It costs more per mile to drive on electricity there than burning gasoline. A big reason for the high cost is the 33% renewable power mandate. Californians electric rates are twice as high, but only get 33% of their power from renewable sources. I hate to think what the rate will be in 2030 when they mandate 50% from renewable sources, excluding hydro.

In Oregon/Washington, electricity is 1/3 the cost per mile as gasoline.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I get what you're saying, but if my utility rates double because we have to build 1000 new nuclear plants in the next 20 years, then my quality of life has been reduced. Not only will my utility bill be higher, but all goods will cost more due to the increased energy price.

This goes to my point about the free market being short sighted. What is good for the planet on the centuries scale, is difficult to justify in the short term of 20-30 years. Unless we begin to phase in a real carbon tax. And give back tax breaks to the poor and middle class to help them pay for it.

[freebeard]

NeilBlanchard — micro-tidal. Possibly using the oscillating water column, with acres of storage between a more modest high and low tide. More places.

Also the Bering Strait and that place Boaty McBoatface went to, the Orkney Passage.

sendler & redpoint5 — So long as we settle for a decreasing rate of increase we're doomed. A negative GDP is not inconsistent with a shift from make-work to insuring forward days of survival.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by freebeard

A negative GDP .

But how do we get there without crashing into complete worldwide economic depression with 30% unemployment. That is our most important question. That has crossed the mind of very few. Since things seem to be rolling along just fine right now. Due to being awash in fossil fuel. And is arguably way more important than the atmospheric carbon issue in the long run.

[freebeard]

Thanks for asking. We can't.

When unemployment goes north of 80%, we will see what we see.

In the 1980s the people who thought about it said that eventually a novel thought would be able to race around the planet in 15 minutes. I didn't see how that would be possible, but... here we are today.

We should lower our vibrations to be in tune with our host planet.
https://attunedvibrations.com/432hz/

We've had all the information we need since the 1970s

Ideas and Integrities: A Spontaneous Autobiographical Disclosure
Utopia Or Oblivion: The Prospects for Humanity

Except where science is off the rails:
Electric Universe theory

See also

• Viktor Schauberger
• Eric Dollard

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by sendler

...(population, energy consumption, and world GDP have been increasing in lock step for 100's of years...

Correlation is not causation, remember. Also, GDP is not really a good measure if the population. That is, if you keep the GDP the same and cut the population in half, the GDP per capita has doubled, no?

Likewise, technology usually decreases the energy needed to perform any given task. Take for instance lighting a room, and consider the increase in lumens per watt going from candles to oil lamps to gas to incandescent to CFL and now to LED. It's just that now there are many more people lighting up things, and - since it's cheap - lighting things that don't need lights, and in many cases shouldn't have them.