The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[taredog]

This thread has been around for a few years. Three actually. I am not going to read it all as it is just the usual people stating the usual things using the usual “proof”
As far as electrical power is concerned, as long as people want to charge their devices there will be a need for power. Electric vehicles that claim “ZEV” are only moving the carbon footprint elsewhere.
Coal is dead, it may come back some day when people need to charge their devices.
Hydro still exists but it is killing the fishies. In the southwest US we are also running out of water for hydro electric generation. Look at the water levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell. That is OK when people need to charge their devices.
Nuclear is OK but we are creating an enormous amount of radioactive waste that needs to be disposed of “somewhere”. That is OK when people need to charge their devices.
Solar and Wind are OK but very peaky and not always available when needed. Nuclear, coal and natural gas power plants may be needed to fill the need for power. That is OK when people need to charge their devices.
I do not doubt that the climate is changing. I have been around a while and remember when expert climate scientists proclaimed we were all going to freeze to death soon.


Maybe we tried too hard back then and caused global climate change to go the other way?
Enjoy your discussions. When one of you comes up with the solution let us all know. In the interim, that is OK when people need to charge their devices.

[sendler]

Keep in mind that primary energy consumption is much more than just electricity production. Electricity is only 20-40% of the primary energy consumed in the world. So even if an area gets a day where they produced 100% of their ELECTRICITY from rebuildables, that is only 1/3 of their total ENERGY or POWER consumption. Much of the remaining 2/3 of primary energy use is very difficult to ever electrify.
.
I hope people can quit saying ENERGY when what they really mean is ELECTRICITY. There is a big difference.

[sendler]

"Currently there is a deficit in the energy availability and 35% of India’s commercial energy needs are still imported. Figure 1. Shows the anticipated growth in energy use in India by fuel source."
.
.

.
.
"Due to its low cost and domestic availability, coal is the dominant fuel source for electricity generation in India, and its use is forecast to grow between now and 2030. India is investing in a number of coal-fired power plants efficiency measures, specifically cogeneration."
.
.

.
.
WADE : World Alliance for Decentralized Energy
.

[oil pan 4]

There is not a large amount of nuclear waste when the spent fuel is quickly recycled.
Up to 95% of the spent reactor fuel is still fuel. When it becomes contaminated with as little as 3% waste, depending on the reactor type the reaction becomes more difficult to regulate.

[All Darc]

Jet (and propellers planes), cars, siderurgic usines, other industries that use heat to melt things.

What more?
Any graphic?

Originally Posted by sendler

Keep in mind that primary energy consumption is much more than just electricity production. Electricity is only 20-40% of the primary energy consumed in the world. So even if an area gets a day where they produced 100% of their ELECTRICITY from rebuildables, that is only 1/3 of their total ENERGY or POWER consumption. Much of the remaining 2/3 of primary energy use is very difficult to ever electrify.
.
I hope people can quit saying ENERGY when what they really mean is ELECTRICITY. There is a big difference.

[oil pan 4]

Where I work they use about $7,000 worth of natural gas per day.
Up to 2 billion BTUs on a busy day.
Compared to a natural gas power plant, that's not even enough to be the meter rounding error.

[sendler]

Resilience.org examines a plan to reduce world energy consumption.
.
"So how do the authors of the “low energy demand” paper propose to achieve in the future what has proved so elusive up until now? Partly through a shift to a sharing society, in which we give up personal ownership of cars, tools, and appliances in favor of payment for energy services such as rides, tool use, etc. Sharing will be enabled and promoted by digitalization and the Internet of Things."
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...vert-collapse/
.

[oil pan 4]

They keep trying the bike sharing thing over in china and they keep failing. Both when government and private companies do it.

[redpoint5]

I think the sharing economy can be helped along by a unified trust index, similar to a FICO score. I've got my Ebay rating, AirBnB, VRBO Lift, Uber, Offer Up, etc, but each time I want to utilize a new service, I have to start from scratch. There needs to be something in place that encourages people to take care of a shared resource, otherwise there will be tragedy of the commons. Someone has shown to not treat things well, and they might not be given the opportunity to ruin more things, or at least they might be charged more for utilizing something, as insurance against their poor reputation.

I'd rent my vehicles to anyone if there were a relatively good system of vetting how responsible people are. People could borrow my tools if I knew I'd get them back in at least as good shape as I loaned it.

Most of the reason private ownership exists is convenience. You have instant access whenever you want. The second biggest reason is that we can't trust strangers to take good care of things.

[sendler]

The other key concept to a more sustainable future:
.
"In our view, at some point scientists and policy makers must begin discussing the one scenario that world leaders seem to want to avoid at all costs, i.e., managed economic contraction."