The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Explosive growth in wind and solar? Barely visible. Updated to 2017. For those that think solar and wind can ever replace fossil fuels.
.
Population and GDP fit almost the same curve.
.
.

.
.

If the climatologists have any say in the matter,they WILL be replaced.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

If the climatologists have any say in the matter,they WILL be replaced.

It is painfully quite obvious to me that there is no chance of replacing even a fraction of the fossil energy we are now using. Things will be much smaller and simpler again in the mid future after the carbon pulse.
.
Rather than blindly wishing for a wind and solar transition to replace even half of that chart, we would be much better off to accept that it is not physically possible and start to focus on easing into the social changes that will be abruptly and painfully forced on us if no early actions are taken.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

.
.
The chart below was data from only one year ago. How much more than next to nothing is it this year? 1.5 times .003 is still next to nothing
.
.

.
.


Sorry. I think you are somehow being greenwashed. Right now it is easy to increase by a certain percentage year on year when you start with next to nothing. The progression of solar and wind will become more linear. 15 years for solar to replace all energy? I'm very sorry. How do you get such an absurd statement?
.
Solar is currently listed as 450TWh out of 150,000 TWh. Which is .3%. Even if you were to stop making the common mistake of saying "energy" when you mean to say "electricity", which is 20% of total energy, solar is currently only 1.5%. IEA is forecasting solar to be 15% of total energy by 2050.

The situation and circumstances are conditional.It can go in any direction,at any speed we choose.
Any attachment to the present state of affairs,and resistance to the transition only injures our ability to divorce ourselves from carbon emissions.
If you keep preaching the gospel of combustion,all the people who look to you for guidance will only delay the deconstruction of the present combustion landscape.
It's a free country,go ahead and trespass on all of your neighbor's environment. Keep us in a technological dark age.
Get a gasoline-powered Maytag washing machine.That ought to send waves of ecstasy through your system.Give Nate Hagens an orgasm.
It's impossible to create an electric appliance.
And it's impossible to create electric power,or power industrial processes,with electric power derived from anything other than fossil-fuels-fired power plants.
It's never been done.It cannot be done.Ever.Thomas Edison never existed.

[Xist]

Aerohead, are you quoting Sendler and responding to someone completely different? At what point did Sendler say anything indicating he was pro combustion?

I worry about your reading comprehension.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

What is the efficience of this system of energy storage bellow ?



I don't know, but I bet it's very low. It loss energy during conversion to electricity, during pump's motor efficience loss, during conversion again to ellectricity when the water move bellow again moving turbines.

I bet it's not more than 30% efficient.

Incandescent light bulbs were 2% efficient and a great market success for 137-years!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I've seen no evidence of a battery breakthrough.

There is nothing to suggest PV panels will achieve 30% efficiency in residential applications.

None of the huge problems have been resolved.

You've just purchased a Model T Ford.
There are no paved roads.
There's no such thing as a gasoline filling station.
There is nothing to suggest that automobiles will achieve any market penetration in the transportation sector.
None of these huge problems have been resolved.

[All Darc]

I must agree. I think solar plus wind plus biofeul and other will help, but probably not enough in terms of keep the same cost to produce electricity, unles new breakthroughs arrive.

Civilization needs to start to accept to be more humble, think in simpler life, end ostentation in order to keep safety and confort. We can keep confort, safety and health if we start to cut ostentantion and luxury.
Smaller cars, smaller homes, not junk food using plastic of foam, return to glass bottles to ice drinks instead o pat bottles using plastic.

Adapt home to capture rain water. Adapt washing machines to collect the soap water and rinse water, to help clean ground using it isntead of potable water. Shower water could be captured to use in toilets discharges.

Hot countries took a lot energy with air conditioned. So why not creat cold rooms, like small rooms to cold days, that would demand less air conditioned power, instead of try to cool large rooms ?

The problem is that nobody wants to get humble even a little bit. It's like a chubby guy that wants to lose weight but just waits for a magic chocolate without calories, isntead of reduce food consume and get some exercises.

In the same way countries are greed and competitive, and no country wants to reduce CO2 and polution, since the other countries would produce more and compete more if they forget about ecologic actitudes.

The most dangerous hazard to human species it's the own human species.

Originally Posted by sendler

Rather than blindly wishing for a wind and solar transition to replace even half of that chart, we would be much better off to accept that it is not physically possible and start to focus on easing into the social changes that will be abruptly and painfully forced on us if no early actions are taken.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Some of the cheapest used solar panels on ebay right now are 21 to 22% efficient. 24% is common now. I don't care how efficient they are. My kind of efficiency is get the most watts for the least dollars.

Here is some good news.
Remember how I said the science behind man made climate change won't hold up in court, well that's whats happening.

https://eidclimate.org/exxonknew-act...-disappointed/

Geoffrey Supran – a Harvard researcher and advocate for fossil fuel divestment – cited a flawed paper he co-authored with fellow activist Naomi Oreskes as ammunition for the New York AG. Supran’s paper was heavily criticized by the foremost expert on content analysis, Kimberly A. Neuendorf, Ph.D., who said the paper was “unreliable, invalid, biased, not generalizable, and not replicable.” Undeterred, Supran did his best to use the lawsuit as an opportunity to reignite interest in his flawed paper.

This is written by the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
Do you think that they would be an unprejudiced,unbiased party,with regards to this narrative?
Do you rely on I.G.Farben's narrative with respect to the use of Zyklon-B at Auschwitz,Birkenau?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

A healthy person can do .6kWH of physical work per 8 hour work day. We replaced human slaves with fossil slaves. World average is 50 fossil slaves standing behind each person. USA people have 200 each.

I remember you saying that, and I quote you in another forum to give people a sense of the problem. Those that think all we need to do is drive EVs and switch to LED bulbs are not comprehending the scope of the problem.

Originally Posted by aerohead

You've just purchased a Model T Ford.
There are no paved roads.
There's no such thing as a gasoline filling station.
There is nothing to suggest that automobiles will achieve any market penetration in the transportation sector.
None of these huge problems have been resolved.

Me and Sendler aren't advocates for oil, as far as I can tell. I'm a truth seeker, and the truth right now is that most all of the world's wealth is attributable to fossil fuels, and transitioning away is going to be slow going, especially at first. You'll find no posts by me advocating for lower efficiency, or burning fossil fuels needlessly, or denying the enormous amounts of energy the sun provides.

People who think it can be done in 20 years don't understand the magnitude of the problem. To transition most energy consuming things to electricity, and transition electricity production to clean plants is a doozy of a problem, especially considering nobody is even testing new nuclear reactor designs. Instead we're spending time and money deploying solar and wind, which isn't even keeping up with the growth in energy, let alone begin replacing existing demand.

It's entirely pointless to fight human nature. We'll continue to burn fossil fuels until alternatives are cheaper. The argument that renewables are cheaper, or that they are cheaper when factoring in externalities is debunked. If utilizing fossil fuels was bad for humans, then we would see declining life expectancy, declining population, declining wealth per capita, declining health... when in fact the opposite is true.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

You've just purchased a Model T Ford.
There are no paved roads.
There's no such thing as a gasoline filling station.
There is nothing to suggest that automobiles will achieve any market penetration in the transportation sector.
None of these huge problems have been resolved.

All the advancements of the last 100 years are the product of super cheap, super dense embodied fossil energy. This was a one time energy bonanza which will never again be repeated. It has allowed human civilization to balloon far beyond the carrying capacity that will remain after we are relegated to whatever we can get out of solar panels.
.
Things will be much smaller and simpler in the future after the carbon pulse.
.
.

.
.