The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Energy with out carbon?
HA!
They show solar panels.
Mono solar panels need liquid helium during production, I think they all need silicon doped with some funky rare earth metals, the mining of which requires a lot of waste radioactive elements to be brought up to the surface. Also very chemical and energy intensive.
The silicon based solar panel epoxy comes from the perto chemical industry.
Tempered glass, requires all the stuff glass needs, so natural gas to melt it and heat treat it.
Aluminum for the frames and everything that goes along with aluminum mining and recycling.

Wind turbines.
Require a base made with a few tons of rebar, 20 to 30 tons of concrete.
The monopole is 20 to 30 tons of steel, or maybe that was for each section of the monopole.
The nacelle is usually around 30 tons of mostly steel, that includes the gear box generator and swivel.
The hub is usually up to 10 tons of steel. Just the steel plate the blades bolts to is 3 inches thick and weighs more 2 or 3 cars.
Each blade can be up to up to 15 tons of mostly fiber glass.
Each wind turbine needs a transformer that weighs a few tons.
Each wind turbine has 50 to 150 gallons of oils, more if they are hydraulic actuated. Less if they are mostly electric.
Unlike solar panels at least almost all of the wind turbines parts can be recycled. With solar panels, you can recycle the aluminum frame and wires, that's about it.

If you love solar panels and wind turbines you also have to love the coal, oil, mining and petro chemical industry.

[darcane]

Originally Posted by Natalya

redpoint you're all over the map. But overall you sound very jaded.

The last thing you mentioned was fighting human nature is pointless. But my experience has been that humans have many kinds of lifestyles and natures. I've also noticed that money talks. Making consumption of fossil fuels expensive prompts people to do other things.

Solar is becoming cheaper than coal in the USA. We're at a point now where the green energy revolution is happening and has started become economical. At the same time electric drivetrain options and batteries are becoming better and better for transportation. And automakers are finally making aerodynamics a serious part of every vehicle they produce. Pretty soon, in most situations, the green options are going to be the cheap options, and that's going to drive a change in human behaviour.

I guess I don't see Redpoint5 as jaded... more that he is realistic.

I would say that people moving to green options because they are cheaper DOES NOT fight human nature at all.

On a whole, people will pick the cheapest energy source that is readily available and reliable. Currently, gasoline and diesel powered cars fill that criteria well. Electric cars do not, because there are availability and reliability issues that still need to be worked out. As technology improves and charging stations become more prevalent, that may change.

Fighting human nature would be to expect them to go to "green" options even though they are expensive, unreliable, and/or unavailable. That is a battle you WILL lose.

[freebeard]

Quote: "Don't reform man, reform his environment"
LIFE - Feb 26, 1971 - Page 53 - Google Books Result

I guess that was too obtuse. R. Buckminster Fuller was the Ur-environmentalist.

https://books.google.com/books?id=bW...ciency&f=false

I don't know how to quote from a Google books result, but the first paragraph describes how Fuller envisioned system theory and voluntarism increasing the overall efficiency of energy use. He also advocated renewal sources and an electrical inter-tie across the Bering Strait.

So also clothesline paradox.

[niky]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

China is leading the way in something, but I'm not sure we should give an award for it.

Percent change, definitely huge, buit that's because China has pulled up a huge chunk of its population straight into the global middle class.

But China's per capita CO2 is still half that of the United States' level.

The Chinese government has done... and is still doing... a lot of boneheaded things with those trillions in cash it has lying around... and the specter of economic recession hangs firmly over the country as China desperately tries to export its money through loans and government-to-government transactions to try to draw more countries into its orbit... but one thing they're doing right is investing massively in renewables and alternative energy, as part of an overall strategy at energy independence and pollution mitigation.

Sure, we can (and do) argue that renewables are expensive, possibly not cost-efficient and etcetera... but by being bullish on renewables, China has managed to become world leader in solar energy supply... exporting it elsewhere.

The current US administration's inward looking focus towards fossil fuels is problematic. The price of oil is just too low, and while it has risen, prices are unlikely to go back to the levels that made quickly-depleted new wells financially lucrative.

Of the three superpowers, US, China and Russia... China is blazing a trail in renewables because it has no oil reserves to lean on. Granted, they're flexing their muscles in the Asian region to lay claim to oil reserves, as well, but they're not putting all their fish in one basket.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by darcane

Fighting human nature would be to expect them to go to "green" options even though they are expensive, unreliable, and/or unavailable. That is a battle you WILL lose.

The free market system will never do what is right for the planet. Would you invest in a project that promises to payback big time in 150 years? It is up to World Councils through Science to chart the course.

[NeilBlanchard]

Renewable energy is free from fossil fuel carbon. That is not the same as carbon free. This is basic stuff.

Renewable energy doesn't consume any fuel, so it is pollution free. And it is essentially infinite - it will last as long as the sun does.

Land based wind is the lowest cost way to make electricity, and solar PV is nearly as low. With proper distribution, and with other renewable sources, and some storage, renewable energy is much more dependable than conventional sources.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

The free market system will never do what is right for the planet. Would you invest in a project that promises to payback big time in 150 years? It is up to World Councils through Science to chart the course.

Your argument is clearly false, because the free market often does "what is right for the planet", unless you believe that replacing whale oil with electric lighting was wrong for the planet.

Your ROI of 150 years is also absurd, because many "green" technologies have much shorter payback periods. Solar electricity can have a payback of 10-20 years. It's mostly a free market that is adopting these changes.

World councils would be comprised of self-interested people like Trump and Clinton, which would be a disaster. Besides that, no world council will ever tell me what car to drive or what lightbulb to use.

Scientists are good at making observations, not making policy. They don't know the economic impact of anything they might propose.

The opposite statement, that the free market always does what is right for the planet is also false. We clearly need regulation to protect us from The Tragedy of the Commons.

My point is that "always" or "never" statements are rarely true.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Land based wind is the lowest cost way to make electricity, and solar PV is nearly as low. With proper distribution, and with other renewable sources, and some storage, renewable energy is much more dependable than conventional sources.

Sorry. I couldn't disagree more. Let's run the numbers.
.
Let’s Run the Numbers – Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar | The Energy Reality Project
.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Your ROI of 150 years is also absurd

Ok Captain Literal. A good example is the USA pulling out of the Climate Accord. It costs us money now and pays back when? In 100 years when a Billion people can still live in their traditional coastal cities which didn't go under water every time a big storm comes through? Obviously the more altruistic among us realize that it is worth some extra commitment now to save the future of civilization. But market driven decisions will continue to suck oil and gas out of the ground because gas electric is the cheapest. And transitioning all heavy transport, agriculture, and heat, to electric, on top of trying to maintain the minimum 2% annual growth (that represents a doubling every 70 years and corresponding increase in energy demand) that is required to keep the free market economy from crashing, is a juggling act for which there is no market driven answer.

[oil pan 4]

I like how the liberals want these crazy climate change and environmental laws.
But look at what they have created from them selves.
If you look at a list of the most air polluted cities California owns the top 5 or 6 spots on the list.
Out of a list of the top 20 most air pollutes cities most of them have been under Democrat control for years.
And they think they know what's best for the environment, HA!