The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

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.



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.

It would be an interesting experiment!
Like some have said,an Apollo Mission.
Right now we're Apollo-13.Our cryo-stir has exploded our oxygen supply.The carbon dioxide level in the command module is reaching lethal partial pressure.We have no Flight Director and engineering team,who can jury-rig a duct taped, a lithium hydroxide canister together to save our bacon.
We could,but the problem is not to be believed.Talk of it might hurt the effete sensibilities of today's civilized man.
We'll just get another planet when we trash this one.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I've seen no evidence of a battery breakthrough.

We don't need a "breakthrough" for storage batteries. You're thinking of cars. Batteries in buildings don't have to be small / light / energy dense.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Xist

Please stop telling people to earn a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering until you have a P.h.D. in environmental sciences.

Or why don't you stop hanging out with unwashed heathens and find some intellectual peers?

I'd add a physics and economics degree, because environmental sciences aren't concerned with well-being for humans. Actually, I'd recommend no degrees since I'm against this current form of formal education. Save the money; learn more rapidly on your own.

I appreciate Aerohead's contributions here. My ideas have to be challenged, and I need to be exposed to different ways of viewing a problem to improve my own conception of things.

Originally Posted by All Darc

Fossil fuels made possible a lot of advanceas. But most of it was wasted.
Look what we do today. Most production it's for futility.

All is vanity...

but I get your point and agree that much is wasted.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

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.
.
.

.
.

I'd advocate as much pro-active behavior as possible in advance of a crisis.Suggesting that current loads are non-negotiable really limits the conversation.Especially for those less informed.
We start sounding like Guy McPherson.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

We don't need a "breakthrough" for storage batteries. You're thinking of cars. Batteries in buildings don't have to be small / light / energy dense.

I'm thinking of all batteries. We need breakthroughs in cost, because it isn't economically justifiable right now to store renewable energy in batteries. We just fire up the existing power plants and crank out the shortfall in electricity.

EVs have essentially a $10,000 fuel tank, which is smaller "capacity" than regular $100 fuel tanks, which takes hours to fill, which degrade over time, which require thermal management, which weigh a lot...

Huge hurdles to overcome. We'll get there eventually.

[NeilBlanchard]

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.

You are way too low - it is 70-80% or more (including evaporation in an open system).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped...mic_efficiency

Very similar principles, in systems like train cars on a slope, or weights in towers - would be even more efficient - about 85%:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy...h_solid_masses

[redpoint5]

Yeah, electric motors can be like 95% efficient. I expect the major losses to be frictional.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Naw, having an opportunity to benefit others and refusing is amoral. This entire discussion is possible due to fossil fuels. Had we not utilized them, most of us wouldn't even be alive for starters, and those that were would be outside plowing fields with oxen only to die at 40 or sooner.

How many of us on here are over 40? We're all dead without fossil fuels. Everyone else has a foot in the grave.

There is a moral case for fossil fuels, and that shouldn't even have to be stated given the exceedingly apparent examples of it absolutely everywhere we look.

Since there's a moral case for utilizing fossil fuels, there's a moral case for utilizing it wisely, which entails using it efficiently. The idea being to maximize the good that it does and extend out the timeframe we have to leverage such a gift.

So we're not going to hold to the 3-C target by 2100.They're talking 3.6-C now.We keep adding carbon dioxide.We're doing nothing to remove what's already in the atmosphere.And it's moral to add more,and criticize alternatives as if they were Satan's spawn.We grow the population more for more extinction later? It's a fascinating calculus.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm thinking of all batteries. We need breakthroughs in cost, because it isn't economically justifiable right now to store renewable energy in batteries. We just fire up the existing power plants and crank out the shortfall in electricity.

EVs have essentially a $10,000 fuel tank, which is smaller "capacity" than regular $100 fuel tanks, which takes hours to fill, which degrade over time, which require thermal management, which weigh a lot...

Huge hurdles to overcome. We'll get there eventually.

The Tesla grid storage batteries will pay for themselves very quickly.

And that doesn't even count the fact that we no longer would have to build peaker plants - which are VERY EXPENSIVE to build and to operate.

Gravity storage systems are cheap, scalable, and very efficient - about 85%.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Did you read MacKay or Murphy? To name just a couple more. You might respect their degrees in Physics better?
.

It will be this coming Saturday before I'd have a chance to look at You-Tube.This computer I have access to during the week has no audio capability.
I little synopsis of what they say would be a big help.
I know a lot of Ph.D.s I wouldn't trust to feed my cat,so their degree doesn't automatically qualify them as trustworthy,but I'll try for Saturday,losing some of the only day in the week that I can research for myself.
I appreciate the links.