The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

My fix to the problem.

-Reduce somehow the consume, targetting the wasted eneregy, introducing lightweight and smaller cars (with incentives). Also reduce the industry activity in futulities.

-Invest in a lot more scientific research in solar power, batteries, lightweight compounds, alternatives to reduce energy consume, educational campaign about reduce consume.

-While technology fights to create better ways, nuclear power could be isued with new generation of safe reactors, despite they be more expensive than coal. Solar power plants, where it's more viable, could also be used. International laws demanding coal plants to have devices to capture part of the CO2 emmited.

-If needed, reduce the life luxury standart. We can keep confort with a smal luxury. Why cool a large house, instead of a smaller room ? Why big cars? Why we need gadgetsm that last few time instead of a very well made that lasty years ? Why not add 4 solar panels to help compensate the air conditioned use in summer?

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's good because the current fix for global warming is to take from, punish and tax the individual so they use less.
Which doesn't nothing to ultimately fix the problem.
Cars still run off gasoline and power plants still burn coal, just a tiny bit less after the government anti carbon beat down.
If they really wanted to fix global warming then nuclear power plants would be used to replace the coal and natural gas base load and the only natural gas plants in use would be emergency peaker plants and to burn off natural gas that may otherwise be flared.
Then only a hand full of coal plants are left that produce fly ash for making high strength, low efflorescent concrete.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's good because the current fix for global warming is to take from, punish and tax the individual so they use less.
Which doesn't nothing to ultimately fix the problem.
Cars still run off gasoline and power plants still burn coal, just a tiny bit less after the government anti carbon beat down.
If they really wanted to fix global warming then nuclear power plants would be used to replace the coal and natural gas base load and the only natural gas plants in use would be emergency peaker plants and to burn off natural gas that may otherwise be flared.
Then only a hand full of coal plants are left that produce fly ash for making high strength, low efflorescent concrete.

Looks like Westinghouse Electric went bankrupt after putting $9-billion into two plants in South Carolina,but there are still two new ones under construction in Georgia,at half completion,and suffering cost overruns,but Toshiba has promised $3.7-billion to complete them.
Evidently,cheap natural gas has really impacted the nuclear industry,as well as less demand for electric power,after energy efficiency improvements and conservation.
China's building 20.
15 in India.
Pakistan
Russia
61 overall.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by All Darc

My fix to the problem.

-Reduce somehow ....

-Invest in a lot more ....

-....nuclear power could be isued....

-....reduce the life luxury standart.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

-Invest in a lot more scientific research in solar power, batteries, lightweight compounds, alternatives to reduce energy consume, educational campaign about reduce consume.

Corporations already have a ton of motivation to develop better technologies. A government funded research program isn't likely to significantly improve the rate of technological progress. There's no guarantee that more research funding can significantly improve solar, battery, or other materials technology. I'm not completely against research subsidy, but it needs to be grounded in specific and worthwhile objectives.

Most problems aren't effectively solved by education because the real issue is cultural. Everyone knows they should "just say no to drugs", yet that educational campaign was an utter failure. Americans all know they shouldn't be overweight, yet they still are. It isn't enough to educate people. There has to be a movement that turns into a social norm that stigmatizes the negative behavior and accepts the positive behavior. Humans are herd-like creatures. Delibritaly steering the herd is tremendously difficult.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Yeah, the graph is interesting and makes a point, but might not tell the whole story.

Wind and solar will continue producing power beyond the year in which it was subsidized. We'd need ongoing updates as to how much electricity was produced per dollar as it amortized over time.

Much of the subsidies of solar are ongoing in the form of feed in tariffs which in the USA are $0.028 /kWh for grid scale solar. So if a gas plant earns a wholesale price of $0.04 / kWh in (average in my area) the solar plant would get the 4c plus another 2.8c from the government. Ongoing. On top of the initial 30% total rebate of the initial cap cost.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

According to Rhodium Group,US carbon dioxide emissions rose 3.4% for the year,after three years of decline.

Equal to GDP growth as I have been saying.

[sendler]

178 meter tall tower topped by 3.4MW turbine with a predicted 35% capacity factor.
.
https://electrek.co/2017/11/02/world...lt-in-germany/
.


So. To make 1/2(from onshore wind) of 1/2(efficiency gains from full electrification) of Germany's total energy (0.44 TW currently) with these tall turbines needs 0.1 TW total from onshore wind.
.
3.4 MW turbines on 170m towers is apparently about as big as it gets due to limitations of transporting larger nacelles or blades over roads. 35% CF is predicted. Which is 10% higher than the current world average for onshore wind due to the extremely tall towers.
.
This would be 83,000 wind turbines in total.
.
5 rotor diameters spacing between each one to avoid dominoes from a tossed blade, and to reduce wind shadows is 1 per km2.
.
83,000 km2 is 24% of the land area of Germany fully populated with wind turbines. But 24% of Germany is not all of adequate wind resources.
.
squeezing them to 3 rotor diameters spacing gets it down to 50,000 km2.
.
14% of the total land area.
.
To build them all in 20 years so that we can start rebuilding them all over again as they wear out is 11 per day. And then start over with rebuilding them all continually at 11 per day forever. For 1/2 of 1/2 of Germany's current energy.
.
Multiply this by 38 for the world.
.

[freebeard]

The integrated pumped hydro is interesting.

Originally Posted by electrek.co

While there isn’t as much wind on earth as there is sunlight for making energy, there are huge amounts of wind energy available – more than enough to power the world. Recent technology evolutions – floating wind turbines and wind+solar+energy storage hybrid powerplants – are giving the industry more opportunities to power our grid. Already, the US electricity grid gets greater than 7% of our electricity from wind power. Iowa gets more than 36%. With the US getting its first offshore farm and Europe powering 200 million households with wind, expect a lot more to come.

Eventually, they will get serious and go with a Solar Updraft Tower. They scale better. Like, up to 20 kilometers!

[All Darc]

Magnets... how thermodynamic see natural magnets, the ones that do not require electricity to keep the magnetism?

In a electromagnet the energy it's required to keep the magnetic field, but in a earth magnet it's just there constant.
If someone could find a constant magnet very easy to turn Off ande On, this could lead to the creation of a generator that don't require fuel but works in sequences of activating and deactivating magnets in sequence to spin a axis. But this would be against thermodynamics, am I right ?

[RedDevil]

You do not need any energy to maintain the magnetic field in an electromagnet!
The only power an electromagnet consumes is what's needed to overcome the resistance of the conductor.

If you do not have resistance, like when the coil is cooled down until it is superconductive, you could short the ends and the magnetic field would be like a permanent magnet.

If you want to change the strength of the magnetic field then you need to change the strength of the current, which requires of provides power.

If there was a way to change the strength of a magnetic field of a permanent magnet, that would of course require power, just like it does with an electromagnet.

Bear in mind that introducing a magnetic field influences all charged moving particles (like all electrons in an atom).
If you drop a strong magnet down on a conductive plate that will cause a current circling round in the material, forming an electromagnet with opposing flux, slowing down the approach of the magnet.
If that plate is superconductive then the magnet will come to a standstill, hovering above the plate, kept in balance by the opposing magnetic field it created in the plate by approaching it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-they-do-that-a-closer-look-at-quantum-magnetic-levitation/


The plate material is de facto an electromagnet, 'powered' by the intrusion of the magnetic field of the small magnet above. It does not need energy to maintain its field; rather, the longer energy (heat) is kept away, the longer it persists!