The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Doesn't change anything.
In 30 years solar might be able to provide 5% of the United States energy.
If we take all the solar we have now, build that much every single year for 30 years we could have 6% of our energy in 30 years from solar.
That's assuming no degradation or disasters taking out panels and assuming there is 0 growth in demand for 30 years.
That doesn't appear possible.
If we built nuclear reactors at a fairly lackadaisical pace for 30 years, with increasing energy demand we could provide an additional 10% of the energy used by the United states with nuclear. Nothing would change and no one would even notice.
That's total energy not just electricity.

So if we reduce electrical demand,we still need to provide as much power as before?
And we're limiting the discussion to electrical power generation.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

We're able to make synthetic diamonds now. Can't think of a much more permanent way to sequester carbon than that, since diamonds are forever.

Diamonds burn.

But diamonds are tetrahedral at a molecular level, so if you could pick-and-place on an atomic level you could fabricate octet truss on a nanoscale. Thus fulfilling everyones dream of the practical airship.

Some climatologists believe that we won't go from the frying pan,to the fire,for 30-years,so,perhaps we'd have a 'window of opportunity' to continue building out load capability.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016,we lost the equivalent of 350,000 new tiny homes to drought,which would have remarkably impacted housing-related energy consumption,which in turn impacts the overall 'load' we need to build for with renewable energy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we were to lose that kind of potential each year,we'd be talking about the loss of 10,500,000 homes by the time we really needed to cut the fossil-fuel umbilical cord (or as my neighbor says,our 'diabolical cord.'

Isn't that an opportunity cost, like sperm lost to porn?

We had that window of opportunity in the 1970s, but people made other choices (or had them made for them). We may have another 30 years at this point but the result might not be the same as if we'd started then.

Space weather plays a minute role,with respect to cloud condensation nuclei and albedo,but they've been included within the climate models for decades,and short of a mass coronal ejection or gamma-ray burst from a local nova event,space weather doesn't mean doodly-squat to climate.
Communications? Yes.

I don't have much opinion about electrical potentials throughout the oceans, but telluric currents definitely exist.

Scott Adams guest last episode proposed an "Iris Hypothesis". Where high temperatures cause certain cloud types to close like the iris of an eyeball, changing the albedo. SA though it verges on religious woo-woo, but it sounds like homeostasis to me.

He has started putting an abstract under his Youtube videos. Now I don't have to quote the transcript. Episode 440:

Half of published scientific papers end up being debunked
__Climate change might be real AND 1/2 claims are garbage
__Climate change might be a hoax, in spite of being sorta true
200 reasons against a theory is a tell that no good reasons exist
Guest: Mark Schneider, nuclear engineering expert
__Operating reactors in America are all Gen II, meltdown danger
__Europe has Gen III, better, much more resistant to meltdown
Gen IV nuclear power has 3 attractive options
__molten salt, molten lead, gas cooled, NO MELTDOWNS
__Loss of power to the facility, no problem, no danger Containment systems make them safe from
__bombs
Gen II explosion danger is due to water for cooling
Gen IV doesn’t use water, eliminates explosion danger
5 to 10 years to bring Gen IV online
__currently happening here…but Russia is progressing
__Some Gen IV options, like molten lead, EAT nuclear waste
Gen IV, only 1/3 of heat generated is used for power creation Other 2/3 can be used to desalinate ocean water

Youtube faked carriage returns and then vBulletin strips leading spaces. I could have turned the underlines white, but just ignore them.

NeilBlanchard & redpoint5 —— So many questions. Pick one each.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

So if we reduce electrical demand,we still need to provide as much power as before?
And we're limiting the discussion to electrical power generation.

Why limit the discussion to electricity when it is only 20% of total primary energy consumption, which all must eventually be reduced and replaced by non carbon sources?

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by myself

Gen IV, only 1/3 of heat generated is used for power creation Other 2/3 can be used to desalinate ocean water

[This message was too short to post, I needed another character]

[oil pan 4]

Breeder reactors don't use water and they can use the nearly unlimited supply of depleted uranium left over from the cold war, naval power reactors and commercial enrichment.

Originally Posted by aerohead

So if we reduce electrical demand,we still need to provide as much power as before?
And we're limiting the discussion to electrical power generation.

What's going to reduce electrical demand in the future?
It sure isn't going to be all these people switching to battery and plug in cars.
I thought the idea is replace fossil fuel use.
A third of the energy used by the US goes to transportation and most of that energy comes from liquid fossil fuels burned by the vehicle.
I have already established if a 2 car household gets rid of 2 gasoline cars and gets 2 electric vehicles that house holds electrical consumption could double, but that depends on what kind of vehicles they get and how far they drive.
We tried the corn to alcohol thing that's completely dependent on natural gas so that's a dead end.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

NeilBlanchard & redpoint5 —— So many questions. Pick one each.

All of my questions were rhetorical, in the same spirit as Neil's.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Diamonds burn.

But diamonds are tetrahedral at a molecular level, so if you could pick-and-place on an atomic level you could fabricate octet truss on a nanoscale. Thus fulfilling everyones dream of the practical airship.

Isn't that an opportunity cost, like sperm lost to porn?

We had that window of opportunity in the 1970s, but people made other choices (or had them made for them). We may have another 30 years at this point but the result might not be the same as if we'd started then.

I don't have much opinion about electrical potentials throughout the oceans, but telluric currents definitely exist.

Scott Adams guest last episode proposed an "Iris Hypothesis". Where high temperatures cause certain cloud types to close like the iris of an eyeball, changing the albedo. SA though it verges on religious woo-woo, but it sounds like homeostasis to me.

He has started putting an abstract under his Youtube videos. Now I don't have to quote the transcript. Episode 440:

Half of published scientific papers end up being debunked
__Climate change might be real AND 1/2 claims are garbage
__Climate change might be a hoax, in spite of being sorta true
200 reasons against a theory is a tell that no good reasons exist
Guest: Mark Schneider, nuclear engineering expert
__Operating reactors in America are all Gen II, meltdown danger
__Europe has Gen III, better, much more resistant to meltdown
Gen IV nuclear power has 3 attractive options
__molten salt, molten lead, gas cooled, NO MELTDOWNS
__Loss of power to the facility, no problem, no danger Containment systems make them safe from
__bombs
Gen II explosion danger is due to water for cooling
Gen IV doesn’t use water, eliminates explosion danger
5 to 10 years to bring Gen IV online
__currently happening here…but Russia is progressing
__Some Gen IV options, like molten lead, EAT nuclear waste
Gen IV, only 1/3 of heat generated is used for power creation Other 2/3 can be used to desalinate ocean water

Youtube faked carriage returns and then vBulletin strips leading spaces. I could have turned the underlines white, but just ignore them.

NeilBlanchard & redpoint5 —— So many questions. Pick one each.

*If there'd been public education in the 1970s,the outcome might have been different.
*The telluric currents aren't attributed with any coupling with the climate.
*There are specific mechanisms associated with clouds in the literature.
I don't have that with me.I don't recall any mention of an 'iris' effect.I'll try for Saturday with the data.
*Scientific papers which make it to publication in the scientific journals are peer-reviewed and 'de-bunked' before they can make it to publication.
*I don't know where Scott Adams gets his 'scientific papers'.If they have a 50% failure rate,then they might be such that they didn't qualify as scientific in the first place,and contained spurious conclusions.
*For climate change to be a hoax would require extraordinary evidence.
*All criticisms of Kepler's law of planetary motion were essentially wrong.
*The Inquisition burned people at the stake for being right.The whole Roman Catholic Church was wrong.And all those 'wrongs' didn't make a right.
*They pilloried Quasimodo for being deaf and for being tried by a deaf judge.
*And then they went after La Esmeralda.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Why limit the discussion to electricity when it is only 20% of total primary energy consumption, which all must eventually be reduced and replaced by non carbon sources?

Why don't we see if we can get through one topic at a time.
A certain value has been established for total current grid electrical demand.
The question is,if this current demand is reduced,while still providing the same effects,and we replaced the current 'prime movers' for electrical production, with a substitute,do we need as much available power as currently required?
It's a simple question.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Breeder reactors don't use water and they can use the nearly unlimited supply of depleted uranium left over from the cold war, naval power reactors and commercial enrichment.




What's going to reduce electrical demand in the future?
It sure isn't going to be all these people switching to battery and plug in cars.
I thought the idea is replace fossil fuel use.
A third of the energy used by the US goes to transportation and most of that energy comes from liquid fossil fuels burned by the vehicle.
I have already established if a 2 car household gets rid of 2 gasoline cars and gets 2 electric vehicles that house holds electrical consumption could double, but that depends on what kind of vehicles they get and how far they drive.
We tried the corn to alcohol thing that's completely dependent on natural gas so that's a dead end.

Ignore everything else for the moment,and just concentrate on this one thought: If the demand is reduced,and you're going to replace the source of the supply with something else,do you need to provide as much capacity as before?

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The question is,if this current demand is reduced,while still providing the same effects,and we replaced the current 'prime movers' for electrical production, with a substitute,do we need as much available power as currently required?
It's a simple question.

Ignore everything else for the moment,and just concentrate on this one thought: If the demand is reduced,and you're going to replace the source of the supply with something else,do you need to provide as much capacity as before?

This avoids the problem that the rhetorical lists have. One good reason is better than lots of reasons. Lots of reasons is a red flag.

Reduce demand and increase technological iteration. That might get us out of a bind.

Think of all the things we don't do now for lack of energy.

*The telluric currents aren't attributed with any coupling with the climate.
*There are specific mechanisms associated with clouds in the literature.
I don't have that with me.I don't recall any mention of an 'iris' effect.I'll try for Saturday with the data.

The Iris Hypothesis is a recent proposal. Telluric currents are associated with earthquakes and volcanoes.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Breeder reactors don't use water and they can use the nearly unlimited supply of depleted uranium left over from the cold war, naval power reactors and commercial enrichment.

Mark Schneider said that water is the problem. It's under pressure and under heat it disassociates the hydrogen. Molten salt or lead don't.

edit:
The Earth's Geocorona extends beyond the moon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j7dWYwj6mI

"Hello wonderful person...."