The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by freebeard

https://youtu.be/z07I-RJgTSA?t=79

https://youtu.be/z07I-RJgTSA?t=213

Same video different time stamps (because no transcription available).

Mental note to self: Never again graze on a Siberian tundra.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The facts I present show the wellbeing of humans increasing in every significant and measurable way. Correlation does not equal causation, but it's still not something to be ignored. It's not useful to talk only of the negative aspects of something when there are plenty of relevant positive aspects of something.

I could easily talk only about the way in which my wife has placed a burden on my life and that would paint a certain picture of her and how it impacts me. If I don't talk about the many benefits of the marriage, then it doesn't reflect reality.

I think it is fairly obvious that an abundance of energy is what enables much of our progress.
That the energy is often derived by burning fossil fuels is a given, but is not essential, as the Nordic countries prove.

CO2 does not improve well-being.
Solving problems with power driven technology does.

Where the power comes from does not influence the result - unless the power source becomes a problem in itself, like by the pollution it causes.

If all the ice melts we'll get at least 60 meters of sea level rise, and it could happen in a few hundred years. Coral reefs can't cope with that rise and die... But coral will find new rooting on the remains of coastal metropolises.
This all will come at a cost to us.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I think it is fairly obvious that an abundance of energy is what enables much of our progress.
That the energy is often derived by burning fossil fuels is a given, but is not essential, as the Nordic countries prove.

Everyone just skipped over my post so I will state it again: Sweden gets 50% of it's electricity from nuclear, 50% from hydro.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...ctor_in_Sweden
.
Norway is 95% hydro.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...ctor_in_Norway
.
Finland is 25% nuclear, 17% hydro, 24% import 5.6% wind, 1.9% other
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...tor_in_Finland
.
Brazil is 88% hydro.
.
Quebec is 90% hydro.
.
Ontario is nuclear 63% hydro 26%.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...Canada#Ontario
.
France is nuclear 76% hydro 10%
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...ctor_in_France
.

If you are blessed with world class hydro, you can make effective electricity. If not, and you don't want to burn carbon fuels we should have kept working on the development of molten fuel reactors.

[oil pan 4]

Seems like the rest of the world has nuclear figured out.

[redpoint5]

Yeah, funny how some here think in terms of virtuous vs unvirtuous countries/groups. It all comes down to environment. You'll get your power from hydro if you are lucky enough to have it. That isn't a sign of superior virtuousness, it's a sign of being economically rational.

[sendler]

Hydro is mostly a sign of geography

[oil pan 4]

The United States was number 1 for hydro power for decades and it got to where we couldn't build more hydroelectric dams with out flooding cities.

[aerostealth]

It is not true that renewables make only 2 or 3 % of the energy mix. This has been under reported for decades due to a confusion between primary energy sources and the delivered energy. This under reporting has been used to suppress support for renewables generally which is probably why it was done in the first place.

[sendler]

If you were to restate primary energy as converted to the worst case conversion factor of 33% (which is low since making heat for industrial thermal processes with carbon fuel is pretty efficient), wind and solar would be 6% of the 1/3 primary energy.

[All Darc]

A new approach to rechargeable batteries | MIT News

"Sadoway cautions that such batteries would not be suitable for some major uses, such as cars or phones. Their strong point is in large, fixed installations where cost is paramount, but size and weight are not, such as utility-scale load leveling. In those applications, inexpensive battery technology could potentially enable a much greater percentage of intermittent renewable energy sources to take the place of baseload, always-available power sources, which are now dominated by fossil fuels."

Well, what is the cost per house (USA standart energy for home family) ?

Edited :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiRrvxjrJ1U

Originally Posted by RedDevil

A promising old battery technology with a fatal flaw gets a new lease of life thanks to a smart invention by Don Sadoway:
A new approach to rechargeable batteries | MIT News
Is isn't power dense but it is cheap and durable and therefore a likely candidate for grid storage.

The MIT link above is what you need to get a grasp of what's happening, but if you prefer a content free video:

It got me to search out the battery, so here goes