The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[RedDevil]

You're a factor 1000 off in the calculations, by the looks of it.
Should have been clear immediately that such extreme numbers can't be right.

If, to go with the numbers, one crew installs 50 2MW for 33 MW effective yearlly, then 24 crews could install 8 GW and 24 million crews would install 8,000 TW.
After 24 years that would be 200,000 TW...
Assuming 10 billion people on earth by then, that is 20 MW a head.
If we are to use that energy, that alone would cook the earth.

But even 24,000 crews installing half the worlds energy supply in wind power is not possible. There may not be enough wind for that. Wind can contribute, but not that much.
Solar though, covering 1.5% of the Earths land mass with PV panels (a Herculean task, but this is a thought experiment) could provide all we need. If it keeps growing at 43% yearly for a decade or so it can indeed get really big.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

You're a factor 1000 off in the calculations, by the looks of it.
Should have been clear immediately that such extreme numbers can't be right.

If, to go with the numbers, one crew installs 50 2MW for 33 MW effective yearlly, then 24 crews could install 8 GW and 24 million crews would install 8,000 TW.

Yes these big numbers get away from me. But 24 times 33MW is only .8GW We need 10,000 times this. So 10,000 wind companies for 24 years.

[freebeard]

This thread hasn't got my pulse up at all, because I don't care if I'm right; I merely enjoy the discussion. So far I would say I've learned the most from Sendler and that has slightly moved my opinion on things. freebeard goes above my head usually, and I don't currently have a lifetime of free time to catch up. References are sometimes too obscure for me to grasp without extensive goog... er, duckduckgoing.

aerohead makes it clear that if the issue is existential in nature, then everything is on the table as possible solutions. Most people, including climate scientists, don't regard the problem as existential.

I like your assessment. Sometimes I go over my own head. I try to leave those out. I'm just Happy to Be Here.

All of my neighbors are all up in arms
About something they saw on TV
Seems some politician got busted for somethin'
That won't make any difference to me
Now I'm sure it's all true and I'm tired of this too
But I can't pray for someone to fall
I let all them people do what people do
I'm just happy to be here at all

Todd Snider

Originally Posted by aerostealth

For oil pan, love it when great wits say something is impossible. Strangely they continue to think the current state of affairs that is a spiraling impossibility is the only forward.

All this what-iffing ignores the possibility that if you can deliver wind power by Zeppelin, you can use the tethered Zeppelin as a power source and storage for hydrogen.

See the Aeromodeller2 . Direct link for your convenience: aeromodeller2.be (not loading for me right now)


https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/237669581.jpg

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by sendler

Yes these big numbers get away from me. But 24 times 33MW is only .8GW We need 10,000 times this. So 10,000 wind companies for 24 years.

Ah right :-)

No we don't need 10,000 wind companies, as we don't want 50% of our energy supplied by windmills.
Nor by coal, nor oil, solar, biofuel, nuclear, tidal, donkeys, whatever.
We need all of them combined (well maybe not the donkeys), located where they work best and put bias on what pollutes the least for the money.

[freebeard]

I'm running out the clock here at the library, and this is 45 minutes long:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHreJbr2WM

Anything in there?

Originally Posted by Vman455

ETA: In the ads at the bottom of this page, the image for this thread is a still from Mad Max 2. I find that amusing. Someone must have posted it a while back.

Those Google driven ads (I never saw at home) here at the library show pictures I've posted 1 or 2 out of 8. On a presumably anonymous *cough*Patriot Act*cough* connection. I think it's based on ZIP code.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by aerostealth

The pathway towards a lower carbon emissions future are pretty clear if you are being intellectually honest about the subject.

I disagree; just this one thread by itself is an argument against that assessment. I don't think anyone commenting here is stupid or dishonest, and we can't come to any sort of consensus on the matter. And that's just, what, 10 people?

[oil pan 4]

Thata true, most of the true believers won't even entertain the idea of replacing coal with nuclear because they are scared of it.
So if nuclear is more scarry then man made climate change that tells you there isn't a problem to begin with.
Because with climate change we are all supposed to die, with old nuclear tech worst case scenario a few zip codes are poisoned with nuclear fall out, that's a far cry from irreversible global damage thata going to hurt everyone on earth for thousands of years.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Vman455

I disagree; just this one thread by itself is an argument against that assessment. I don't think anyone commenting here is stupid or dishonest, and we can't come to any sort of consensus on the matter. And that's just, what, 10 people?

I wouldn't say the path toward lower CO2 emissions is clear because it will involve such a huge array of various technologies and methods. Some things might be more clear than others, but there certainly isn't some prescription spelling out exactly what is needed.

The only way I could see the path to lower CO2 being clear is if it involves an uber authoritarian world government mandating drastically lower fossil fuel consumption, regardless of consequence, and with threat of force/death. Pretty easy to imagine that simplistic approach; one which I hope isn't being advocated for.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

if nuclear is more scarry then man made climate change that tells you there isn't a problem to begin with.

That's a very good point.

There's other legitimate criticism of nuke such as cost and time to build, but those must be related to ignorance-based fear and opposition. We used to build nuclear plants orders of magnitude cheaper and quicker back in the 70s. How is it with advances in technology it's become 20x more expensive? I suppose iron and concrete has spiked in price since then, but not by 20x.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The only way I could see the path to lower CO2 being clear is if it involves an uber authoritarian world government mandating drastically lower fossil fuel consumption, regardless of consequence, and with threat of force/death. Pretty easy to imagine that simplistic approach; one which I hope isn't being advocated for.

The Soviet communist dream.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by sendler

The Soviet communist dream.

More like soviet communism as applied to the Ukrainians under stalin.