The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by sendler

Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy (electricity) 12.0
.
https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/...120-vfinal.pdf
.
But even they are guilty of my pet peave right in their title: Most people, and researchers, conflate the terms "energy" and "electricity". But electricity is only 20-30% of our primary energy consumption. So even if we make it to 100% of ELECTRICITY world wide by 2050, and increase it's share with electrified and simplified personal transportation and some heat pumps, we will still have the more difficult 60% of thermal energy to try to replace.

It's 13F here today and I am getting by just fine burning wood.

I wonder how many of our believers are heating their homes with mostly carbon neutral wood.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

It had to do with gases that are produced in 1 of their 4 stomachs. Those don't sink into the soil.

Laws of Physics say that no energy or matter can be created or destroyed. Gases are not "created" in their stomachs, and so they do not change the level of gases in the air. The cycle of life is continuous. Cattle have existed for millions of years - and they do not cause climate change.

Watch the videos, and learn how we could use livestock to sink carbon into the soil.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If the global warming religion goes pro nuclear, which its looking like it will I may find it more agreeable.
I might be able to look past the agenda driven science, throwing out observations that go against the narrative, untestable hypothesis, marathon cherry picking, obvious attempt at global redistribution of wealth.
Well maybe not that last one.

Obviously no one has the cure for the common cold or aids.
But 20 years ago they said hep C would always be in curable.
I expect big pharma to have an aids cure by 2030.
If some individual came up with it on their own then they would become one of the top 10 riches people on earth very quickly.
Obviously that guy doesn't believe in testable, reproducible science.

So, if you agree with a guy who thinks he had a cure for AIDS and the common cold - and who spread lies that are told by companies who make MASSIVE profits - it is you who have fallen for a myth.

Science is our best understanding of how the world works.

Nuclear energy is not workable - we have only just begun to pay for the decommissioning. They lied about nuclear energy - they said it would be TOO CHEAP TO METER. And it has endangered us all with the constant threat of total destruction - North Korea and Iran and Israel and Pakistan and India are all very problematic. And so is our country, and Russia.

No thanks.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Some of the believers on here are legitimately terrified of nuclear power and they don't appear to under stand how it works or the nuclear fuel life cycle.
They think all nuclear is the devil, even gen 4 reactors that can't melt down or blow up are useless for nuclear weapon fuel and don't produce long lived waste isotopes.
Well they do produce one long lived waste, a relatively tiny amount of plutonium 238, which is used on deep space probes.
The space program would want most if not all of it.

If these are so great - why don't we have them? They have to have energy and material inputs, and they can't be perpetual - so, how are they renewable?

Centralized power plants are problematic. We need to go to micro grids, which are much more robust and resilient.

[oil pan 4]

Well there is no way renewable power alone is going to be able to power the future with tons of people driving electric vehicles.

Solar works only during the day and wind mostly works during the day, then people are going to charge their cars mostly in the evening and at night?
Not going to work.

We are not decommissioning much of anything.
Just a few years ago Palo verde nuclear power station got their NRC license extended to at least 2046 and this year the anti nuclear useful idiots in AZ put out a referendum to close Palo verde.
It was slaughtered 70% nay to 30% in favor.
It was an epic loss for the anti nuclear ignoramuses.

It looks like the global warming movement is going pro nuclear, try to keep up.

We don't have gen 4 nuclear reactors because no one wants to fund them.
The trump administration just appropriated a few million dollars for thorium reactor research split between 4 different firms. That's the first federal money spent on thorium power in decades.
To compare, in the 1940s we spent the equivalent of 2 trillion of today's dollars developing nuclear weapons and reactors. At the hight of it all 80% of engineers in the country were involved with the nuclear power and weapons programs.
Thorium gets a mist droplet or 2 in the bucket compared to what built the current nuclear systems.

There is only at least a hundred or so years of thorium stock piled by the US and mostly china. There is at least 1,000 years in the ground that could be mined, maybe another 1,000 years worth in sea water and we can get another 1,000 years worth if it's saved from rare earth element refining and coal fly ash.
By then maybe fission will be figured out.
If it will last a few thousand years why does it have to be renewable?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Laws of Physics say that no energy or matter can be created or destroyed. Gases are not "created" in their stomachs, and so they do not change the level of gases in the air. The cycle of life is continuous. Cattle have existed for millions of years - and they do not cause climate change.

Organisms have impacted climate and caused change since the beginning of life.

Methane is a greenhouse gas that contributes to warming, and has a halflife of something like 10 years, at which point turns into CO2 and water; so still greenhouse gasses.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Nuclear energy is not workable - we have only just begun to pay for the decommissioning. They lied about nuclear energy - they said it would be TOO CHEAP TO METER. And it has endangered us all with the constant threat of total destruction - North Korea and Iran and Israel and Pakistan and India are all very problematic. And so is our country, and Russia.

Once the cat is out of the bag, there is no putting it back in. As technology makes the human species more powerful, there will be increasing threat to humanity for those who wish to use it for evil. Nuclear weapons are here, and they will stay. We can decide to use the technology to do something productive (produce useful energy), or we can resign the technology to destructive purposes.

Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are not synonymous.

Who do you think lied about saying it would be too cheap to meter? Keep in mind a lie requires 2 things; the thing being stated is incorrect, and the intent was to deceive.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

If these are so great - why don't we have them? They have to have energy and material inputs, and they can't be perpetual - so, how are they renewable?

So do giant wind turbines which wear out. And 1,000s of square miles of grid scale solar farms with their inverters and batteries that wear out. All of which can only be constructed and serviced with immense liquid fuel inputs.
.
Wind and sun are renewable. Turbines and solar farms are rebuildable. If we have the transportable and dense energy surplus to rebuild them.

[oil pan 4]

Thorium is useless for making nuclear weapons. That's why our government had 0 interest in thorium tech from 1942ish to 2017.

I believe in micro grids too.
Since most transmission losses happen during peak use the micro grids powered by solar could eliminate a good portion of peak load associated line losses.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Laws of Physics say that no energy or matter can be created or destroyed. Gases are not "created" in their stomachs, and so they do not change the level of gases in the air. The cycle of life is continuous. Cattle have existed for millions of years - and they do not cause climate change.

Watch the videos, and learn how we could use livestock to sink carbon into the soil.

Gases are created out of the ingested food as a result of a biochemical reaction in their stomach. But sea weed largely prevents that reaction. You do understand that some chemical reactions produce gas, I hope? Especially in acid?

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

If these are so great - why don't we have them? They have to have energy and material inputs, and they can't be perpetual - so, how are they renewable?

Because reasons. Not renewable, re-manufacturable.

Centralized power plants are problematic. We need to go to micro grids, which are much more robust and resilient.

The path forward would be to embed microgrids within larger grids and complete the Bering Strait intertie.