The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

I stumbled upon this article while researching Texas electricity.
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...d-electricity/
.
To sum up, when intermittent electricity is added to the electric grid, the primary savings are fuel savings. At the same time, significant costs of many different types are added, acting to offset these savings. In fact, it is not even clear that when a comparison is made, the benefits of adding intermittent electricity are greater than the costs involved.
.
.

.
.

[oil pan 4]

Hmmm if I didn't know any better I would say it looks like you electricity is more expensive where you have more wind and solar.
Which goes against everything the green washin believers have been saying all along.

[freebeard]

Today on Slashdot: Extreme CO2 Levels Could Trigger Clouds 'Tipping Point' and 8C of Global Warming (carbonbrief.org)
https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/0...global-warming

Experiment Already Done and..NO (Score:3)
by Zorro ( 15797 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2019 @10:53AM (#58182690)

Triassic: 1750 ppm CO2. Temp 3 C above modern level.
Jurassic: 1950 ppm CO2. Temp 3 C above modern level.
Cretaceous: 1700 ppm CO2. Temp 4 C above modern level.
Paleogene: 500 ppm CO2. Temp 4 C above modern level.
Neogene: 280 ppm CO2. Temp 0 C above modern level.
Quaternary Period: 250 ppm CO2. Temp 0 C above modern level.

Then you get to the Modern Period. Frankly we are still living in an Ice Age.

[redpoint5]

I've got a roommate who has a doctorate in EE, whose job is to develop solutions to local supply problems by routing power from other producers on the grid. I don't know much about what he does, but I'm sure he knows the answers to most technical questions we'd have.

[freebeard]

We're expecting answers.

Suspicious 0bservers is hinting at some bombshell news. But the Observing The Frontier meetup is showing UFO disclosures, so....??

[Taylor95]

Interesting article:
https://newatlas.com/carbon-capture-...to-coal/58637/
Supposedly turning atmospheric CO2 into coal is in the realm of possibility. One article I read said that it could be put back into the ground, however it could also be burned for energy, along with the byproducts produced from it.

A different article I read earlier today said something different from this article; that researchers actually made coal flakes from CO2 at room temperature.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

We're expecting answers.

Hey, maybe I should talk about setting up a Skype meeting with him where we can submit questions... of course I'd need a written guarantee from every member on this forum that nothing said could be taken as offensive to him.

He's also Chinese, (Cheng), so I'm sure there will be language difficulty too.

Originally Posted by Taylor95

Supposedly turning atmospheric CO2 into coal is in the realm of possibility. One article I read said that it could be put back into the ground, however it could also be burned for energy, along with the byproducts produced from it.

I haven't read the article yet, but what is the proposed source of energy to accomplish this task? The problem is always where do we get the energy in the first place. The law of entropy has a way of complicating things.

[freebeard]

I pinkie-swear.

To store CO2, it's usually compressed into a liquid form or bonded with water, and then injected deep underground. There, it interacts with basalt rock and solidifies into a carbonate mineral, reportedly in as little as two years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biorock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Hilbertz

Biorock technology arose from experiments in the 1970s when Hilbertz was studying how seashells and reefs grow, by passing electric currents through salt water. In 1974, he found that as the salt water electrolyzes, calcium carbonate (aragonite) combines with magnesium, chloride and hydroxyl ions to slowly accrete around the cathode, eventually coating the electrode with a material similar in composition to magnesium oxychloride cements and as strong as concrete. Over time cathodic protection replaces the negative chloride ion (Cl-) with dissolved bicarbonate (HCO3-) to harden the coating to a hydromagnesite-aragonite mixture with gaseous oxygen evolving through the porous structure. Later experiments showed that the coatings can thicken at the rate of 5 cm per year. As long as current flows, the structure continues to grow and strengthen. It can heal itself if damaged, making it particularly useful as a replacement for concrete in hard-to-access locations. High levels of dissolved oxygen make it particularly attractive to marine organisms, particularly fin fish.

Hilbertz originally called his invention, on which he obtained several patents, underwater mineral accretion or accretion for short. Hilbertz’s original plan was to use this technology to grow low-cost structures in the ocean for developing countries. He also envisioned accreting large aquadynamic OTEC ocean thermal energy conversion plants, both for generating power and for producing hydrogen, ammonia, and magnesium hydroxide.[3] This appeared to result in a building process largely independent of land-based resources.

Waterworld. I talked to Wolf Hibertz by phone before he was driven out of the United States by the concrete industry.

S0's news:

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

So far I'm 10 minutes in.

[Taylor95]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I haven't read the article yet, but what is the proposed source of energy to accomplish this task? The problem is always where do we get the energy in the first place. The law of entropy has a way of complicating things.

Liquid gallium is the catalyst, and the energy source is just electricity.

[All Darc]

I support ecology. But this TV commercial sounded very funny :

https://youtu.be/HE9nLWFZ6ac?t=65


We need a hero... ;-)