The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Well sustainable is an imaginary conception anyhow. Nothing is sustainable indefinitely. Whenever the word is used, it needs to be qualified with a timeframe.

The fact is, scaling back resource consumption could have consequences that make the human race less sustainable due to slower progress of technology. It's easy to imagine us stuck with 1800s technology where 95% of us are farmers just subsisting, and being completely oblivious to a world ending meteor headed toward us. Just as easy to imagine is having developed technology that both detects the world ending meteor and averts it.

Sure, we don't need bottled water, and individually wrapped food items, and tons of other mostly useless junk, but it's basically impossible to distinguish what is waste from innovation from some sort of policy standpoint.

Good luck with that.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

We can't continue.We've just created billions of more people to starve.

So this is true. The question now becomes: Do we use our technological prowess to build a clean energy bridge to buy some time to gain sapience? To buy time to try to more humanely bend back down to sustainable permaculture populations? Or just pull the plug, let collapse happen, and accept whatever comes out the other side of the bottleneck?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Point is, nobody in the 1800s was going to observe a world ending meteor and then alter the outcome.

Scaling back the economy without unduly impacting innovation is very tricky.

It took exactly everything that has transpired in the past to arrive where we are today. If things could have been any different, they would have.

Seems like outcomes could have been infinite.They would be a consequence of the sum total whatever behaviors existed in that past.
We wouldn't know otherwise though,as things would always be what they were,based upon whatever options were exercised at the time.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

We need generation capacity to charge electric vehicles, not storage capacity.
If me and my wife both drove electric vehicles our electrical consumption would just about double.
If everyone starts driving electric cars a stupid grid storage battery isn't going to do anything.

I thought the premise for the battery was allow a renewable source constant output onto the grid during lapses in solar or wind,and to also store power for after sunset,or periods of calm,extending 'production'.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Go Nuclear.
Grid batteries are stupid.
There is only several hundred years worth of uranium sitting around left over from the cold war.
The world can barely make enough batteries for a few million new electric cars each year.
Grid batteries don't generate power they waste it.

Some are trying very hard to make a go of nuclear.
I had 'grid-scale' batteries for a decade and they were great.They allowed me to have continuous available power for many days,when there was no sun at all.
As to making batteries,there may exist technologies which haven't been tapped yet.
If a cloud transits a solar farm,a battery will allow for loads,as currently gas-fired turbine peaking plants do.If nothing else.

[oil pan 4]

Solar and wind aren't going to work since they don't produce power most of the 24 hour cycle.
If everyone switches passenger vehicles to electric then residential electrical demand doubles.
Utilizing a gigawatt hour scale battery that's only around 80% efficient is really stupid.
Just think, all the wind and solar we have now won't even cover charge to discharge losses. What a waste.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If that's how you roll, cool.

You could move to Colorado Springs,Colorado,pay 67% tax as a self-employed building contractor,married,with two kids,and have nothing to show for it until age 62.
The definition of 'socialism' used to be,when the government took 26% of your income.
It's not about 'free',it's about what you get for your 'investment.'

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

It's really too bad that it seems you will never allow yourself to even try to understand any of this.

I began to really understand in 1971.It's been a steady process ever since.
I've never considered economics an actual science,and history has shown that some economists have destroyed the economy like no one else could.
Why would I give them any credibility carte blanche ?
I've also experienced enough technology to understand that your statistics are laughable.
If I were a wishing person,then I'd wish that you were more skeptical.
Too bad.

[freebeard]

From earlier today:

I feel that the whole manned base on Mars thing is a complete waste of engineering talent and resources that could be much better spent on trying to build out the replacement for our very soon to be dwindling fossil energy here on Earth. There is no plan(et) B.
.
If we really think that we still have the societal surplus to spend on playing around with offworld humans, the South Pole of the Moon would be just as (in)hospitable as Mars and is much closer.

All eggs in one basket.There would be no spinoff from the requisite R&D?

Neither has a magnetic field, so neither has that advantage over one of the LaGrange points.
Later earlier today:

Originally Posted by aerohead

According to the experts,the most beneficial level is not only zero,but negative combustion.

Score one for Viktor Schauberger.

Originally Posted by aerohead

I thought the premise for the battery was allow a renewable source constant output onto the grid during lapses in solar or wind,and to also store power for after sunset,or periods of calm,extending 'production'.

Electric vehicles recharging at residences in the dark w[ill/ould] flatten that demand curve.

Scott Adams is up to Episode 435, and he's still agnostic on the climate, but becoming an advocate for 4th generation nuclear.

The one point he leaves out is that Cody Wilson's molten salt reactor can be launched cold and lit off at the end of the 2nd stage boost phase. Out there where all the resources are.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

So this is true. The question now becomes: Do we use our technological prowess to build a clean energy bridge to buy some time to gain sapience? To buy time to try to more humanely bend back down to sustainable permaculture populations? Or just pull the plug, let collapse happen, and accept whatever comes out the other side of the bottleneck?

According to the literature,the private sector,university labs,institutes,think tanks,government labs,and all the rest are running balls to the wall, in every discipline,trying to keep up with all the challenges we face.
While some scream for basic research,others work tirelessly to cut science funding as best they can.
They're trying to be equitable and protect everyone as best they can.There is though,tribalism,regionalism,nationalism going on,while we're facing global challenges.
Nobody has a clue as to how to deconstruct an economic mechanism predicated upon infinite growth.It's political poison.Not a lot of volunteers for sacrifice.
Historically,we wait for crisis,as this is what we evolved for.Distant threats don't get our attention the way Dancing with the Stars does.
I can't imagine plug-pulling.I don't think we're wired for that.
Our democracy was predicated upon an informed populace.We don't have one.
I don't think we can have one until the Supreme Court takes another look at the due process clause of the 14th-Amendment,or at least grants the Earth 'legal personhood' and qualifies it for protection under Public Law 94-103,94th Congress,An Act,Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975,October 4,1975,Sec.121 (a) (1) (A),so an advocacy group could represent it in court,as Hostess Cupcakes or a Wilson Basketball already qualifies.
We're playing with fire.I think we ought to act like it.